20 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the proceedings were not proceedings "under" the MHA for s 25 purposes, applied s 200 CPA appropriately, identified no error of law or fact warranting further appeal, and found no matter of general or public importance or risk of miscarriage of justice justifying leave.
5 Feb 2019
The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the District Court's refusal of permanent name suppression because the appellant failed to demonstrate that publication of his name would be likely to cause the very high level of 'extreme hardship' required by s 200(2). The evidence that publication would enable his stepfather to find or contact him was speculative, protective measures and likely name change/relocation reduced the risk, and any alleged link between his traumatic history and the offending was unproven.