The High Court has ordered that the future substantive hearing of an anonymised judicial review application take place in camera, after finding a risk that publication could prejudice the applicant. The ruling does not decide the merits of the judicial review or the admissibility of the disputed evidence.
The applicant is challenging a 21 June 2022 decision by a panel of the respondents, made during a disciplinary process, that certain contested evidence would be admissible. The dispute concerns screenshots said to have been obtained unlawfully from a mobile messaging application. The judgment describes the underlying question as whether the material indicated communications with a third-party adult over a defined period, or was fake. It also records that the applicant says they had one consensual sexual encounter with that person.
At an earlier inquiry hearing, the respondents had directed anonymity for the applicant, witnesses, people referred to, the institution and identifying places or matters. The High Court had also made an anonymisation order when granting leave for judicial review. The present application sought the additional measure of holding the substantive judicial review hearing in camera.
Justice Conleth Bradley said the court had to approach any departure from public hearings restrictively and with scepticism. He nevertheless considered the circumstances exceptional and pressing. He cited the small number of inquiries involving the respondents and the particular evidence dispute as creating a risk that the applicant and others could be identified despite anonymity measures. He also said anonymity alone might not prevent details from reaching the disciplinary panel and potentially undermining a later decision about whether the evidence should be excluded.
The judgment records that the applicant remained employed, was in good standing, worked at a different location from the time of the allegations, and that current employers were unaware of the allegations. The applicant had not been subject to an application to suspend their registration in the public interest. The respondents took a neutral position on the application for an in camera hearing.
The court ordered that the substantive judicial review hearing proceed in camera and be listed accordingly. The judge expressly made no comment on the merits of the judicial review. Costs of this application were reserved after the parties were heard on 31 January 2024; the judge had proposed making no order as to costs, subject to hearing from them.