Simms-Davies v Southwark Crown Court [2026] EWHC 337 (Admin) (18 February 2026)

Simms-Davies v Southwark Crown Court [2026] EWHC 337 (Admin) (18 February 2026)

The principle of open justice applies to judgments approving DPAs, and the judge was correct to require the claimant to establish that continued anonymity was necessary to protect his rights. No sufficient evidence was provided to justify derogation from open justice, and the judge's approach and balancing exercise...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 337 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Robb Simms-Davies; Defendant: Southwark Crown Court; Interested Party: The Director of the Serious Fraud Office; Interested Party: Bluu Solutions Limited; Interested Party: Tetris-Projects Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Claim for Judicial Review
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Deferred Prosecution Agreements, Open Justice, Anonymity in Judgments, Article 8 ECHR, Reporting Restrictions
Criminal Law Public Law Human Rights Deferred Prosecution Agreements Open Justice Anonymity in Judgments Article 8 ECHR Reporting Restrictions

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robb Simms-Davies

Claimant

Southwark Crown Court

Defendant

The Director of the Serious Fraud Office

Interested Party

Bluu Solutions Limited

Interested Party

Tetris-Projects Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Claim for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principle of open justice applies to the publication of judgments approving DPAs after acquittal of named individuals
  2. 2 Whether the judge was correct to require the claimant to establish necessity for continued anonymity post-acquittal

Ratio Decidendi

The principle of open justice applies to judgments approving DPAs, and the judge was correct to require the claimant to establish that continued anonymity was necessary to protect his rights. No sufficient evidence was provided to justify derogation from open justice, and the judge's approach and balancing exercise were correct.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for judicial review is dismissed.
  • The judgment approving the DPA may be published in un-anonymised form.