Justice accuses Government of seeking to establish blanket anonymity for “junior” civil servants

Law reform charity Justice has intervened on what it called a “principle of open justice”, to allege the Government wanted blanket anonymity for civil servants deemed ‘junior’ in documents disclosed in judicial review proceedings.

It intervened in the High Court in the case of IA & others v the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities, which relates to asylum seeker housing.

Justice said the term ‘junior civil servant’ was broad and might include political special advisors, since these are classed as temporary civil servants.

This was part of the Government “seeking to establish a new legal norm that junior civil servants’ names be redacted by default, despite these names appearing in documents the Government itself has identified as relevant to the case”, Justice said, adding this practice “sets a dangerous precedent and is unlawful”.

Automatically removing a class of civil servants’ names from public scrutiny “would undermine the fairness of proceedings for claimants [and] undermine the principle of open justice”, it said.

Chief executive Fiona Rutherford said: “Facing uncomfortable scrutiny in the Covid inquiry and with people’s trust in our core institutions deteriorating, the Government now seeks automatic anonymity for junior civil servants by the back door. This is a step towards less transparency and less accountability of those in public office.

“Open justice – the public’s ability to check, investigate, and understand legal proceedings – is a guiding principle of UK law. It must be protected. Allowing the Government to redact names en masse would erode open justice, undermining fairness, trust, and, ultimately, the rule of law.”

Justice said that in each case a court should consider whether fair disclosure under the ‘duty of candour’ requires that the names be disclosed to the claimant and the court, as “if a document is relevant, the names in it will almost always be relevant too.”

A court can then consider what steps, if any, it should take to prevent those names from entering the public domain, any use of anonymity “strictly necessary in the interests of justice and based on evidence in that case”.

Justice did not participate in the underlying case, which concerns challenges by several asylum seekers to the Draft Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023, which would exempt asylum support accommodation from house in multiple occupation licensing rules.

DLUHC and the Home Office have been approached for comment.

Mark Smulian