Secretary of State for the Home Department v IM & Ors

Secretary of State for the Home Department v IM & Ors

The court granted the application for part of IM's evidence to be heard in private and redacted from other respondents, as the evidence concerned a minor and wider dissemination would likely harm the minor's private life and emotional well-being. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant case law to protect the child's Article 8 rights, finding this outweighed the principle of open justice on the specific facts.

Parties
Claimant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Defendant: IM; Defendant: JM; Defendant: LG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / TPIM Review / Case Management Hearing; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Tpims, Open Justice, Privacy of Minors, Redaction of Evidence, Private Hearings
Public Law National Security Civil Procedure Tpims Open Justice Privacy of Minors Redaction of Evidence Private Hearings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Claimant

IM

Defendant

JM

Defendant

LG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / TPIM Review / Case Management Hearing; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether part of IM's evidence should be heard in private and redacted from other respondents to protect a minor's privacy
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion to limit open justice for the protection of a child's Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the application for part of IM's evidence to be heard in private and redacted from other respondents, as the evidence concerned a minor and wider dissemination would likely harm the minor's private life and emotional well-being. The court exercised its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant case law to protect the child's Article 8 rights, finding this outweighed the principle of open justice on the specific facts.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Part of IM's evidence to be heard in private and redacted from JM and LG
  • Order and judgment to be served on the Press Association