View source for R (C) v SSJ (2016) UKSC 2

{{Case
|Date=2016/01/27
|NCN=[2016] UKSC 2
|ICLR=[2016] WLR(D) 34
|ICLR ID=2016000947
|Other citations=[2016] HRLR 7, (2016) 149 BMLR 1, (2016) 19 CCL Rep 5, [2017] 1 All ER 513, 149 BMLR 1, [2016] EMLR 13, [2016] 1 WLR 444, [2016] WLR 444, [2016] MHLO 2
|Court=Supreme Court
|Judges=Hale, Clarke, Wilson, Carnwath, Hughes
|Parties=C, Secretary of State for Justice
|Judicial history first case=R (C) v SSJ (2014) EWHC 167 (Admin)
|Sentence=Anonymity
|Summary=(1) There is no presumption of anonymity in proceedings which are about the compulsory powers of detention, care and treatment under the 1983 Act: in each case the judge must decide whether or not anonymity is necessary in the interests of the patient. (2) On the facts, an anonymity order was necessary in the interests of this particular patient. Extracts from judgment: "The first issue before us is whether there should be a presumption of anonymity in civil proceedings, or certain kinds of civil proceedings, in the High Court relating to a patient detained in a psychiatric hospital, or otherwise subject to compulsory powers, under the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). The second issue is whether there should be an anonymity order on the facts of this particular case. ... The question in all these cases is that set out in CPR 39.2(4): is anonymity necessary in the interests of the patient? It would be wrong to have a presumption that an order should be made in every case. There is a balance to be struck. The public has a right to know, not only what is going on in our courts, but also who the principal actors are. This is particularly so where notorious criminals are involved. They need to be reassured that sensible decisions are being made about them. On the other hand, the purpose of detention in hospital for treatment is to make the patient better, so that he is no longer a risk either to himself or to others. That whole therapeutic enterprise may be put in jeopardy if confidential information is disclosed in a way which enables the public to identify the patient. It may also be put in jeopardy unless patients have a reasonable expectation in advance that their identities will not be disclosed without their consent. In some cases, that disclosure may put the patient himself, and perhaps also the hospital, those treating him and the other patients there, at risk. The public’s right to know has to be balanced against the potential harm, not only to this patient, but to all the others whose treatment could be affected by the risk of exposure. ... I conclude that an anonymity order is necessary in the interests of this particular patient. His regime before he left hospital, involving escorted leave in the community, demonstrated the need for anonymity and the case is even stronger now (as foreseen in R (M) v Parole Board). Without it there is a very real risk that the progress he has made during his long years of treatment in hospital will be put in jeopardy and his re-integration in the community, which was an important purpose of his transfer to hospital, will not succeed. I would therefore allow this appeal and maintain the anonymity order in place."
|External links=* [https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2014-0210.html Supreme Court website]. This page includes the judgment, a press summary, and videos of the judgment summary and entire hearing
|Subject=Anonymisation cases
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2022/07/18 10:49:17 AM
}}