On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 731

The court extended an anonymity order imposed in the course of proceedings relating to a control order, so as to cover its judgment and any other reports of the proceedings. Some weight had to be given to the generalised arguments put forward by the Secretary of State that anonymity helped to make the administration of control orders more effective. There was, however, even more force in AP’s submission that if he were revealed to be someone who had been subject to a control order and was subject to deportation proceedings for alleged matters relating to terrorism, then he would be at real risk not only of racist and other extremist abuse but also of physical violence. The absence of any submissions on behalf of the media meant that the House was not aware of any special circumstances which might point to a particular public interest in publishing a report of the proceedings identifying AP. In those circumstances, the public interest in publishing a full report of the proceedings and a judgment identifying AP would not justify curtailing his respect for his private and family life, and would have to give way to the need to protect him from the risk of violence.

For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII