Anonymity Applications: Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2025] EWHC 3237 (KB)

22 December 2025

In April 2025, we reported on the Supreme Court’s decision in Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15 to discharge injunctions anonymising clinicians following the conclusion of proceedings concerning the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for two children.

Last month, the High Court applied the principles set out in Abbasi in the case of Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon & Ors v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2025] EWHC 3237 (KB) and refused to grant an anonymity order in respect of a witness.

The Application

The Claimants issued an anonymity application to withhold the identity of a witness, upon whose evidence the Claimants intend to rely at trial, identified with the pseudonym ‘Berlin’. They sought Berlin’s name be withheld from proceedings in open court and that reporting restrictions be imposed. Berlin’s evidence is said to be corroborative as to the activities of private investigator Gavin Burrows (aka Rhodes), in respect of whom the Defendants have successfully sought a witness summons requiring his attendance at trial for cross-examination.

The Evidence

Berlin authored a second witness statement in support of the anonymity application, expressing concern for his personal safety should his identity be revealed. Inter alia, he cited:

“My concern is my own and, particularly, my family’s welfare and safety, and the threat posed by individuals involved in this litigation, such as Gavin Rhodes, if it were to be public that I was a witness giving the evidence I wish to give.
The risk to my family’s and my safety is therefore not unfamiliar to me and is something I have had to deal with before. I do not wish for me or my family to have to do so again…
Although I know I would be giving evidence for the right reasons, it would not be perceived that way by others: their world is one where you do not talk to anyone else and everything is dealt with in their own way. I fear my evidence would put both me and my family at risk of threats from such individuals
…having already experienced threats … in 2007, my safety and that of my family will be at risk from Gavin Burrows and other implicated business partners if my witness evidence cannot be given anonymously. Any alternatives to anonymity, such as withholding my address from court documents or my evidence being given over video link, will not protect my family and I…”

Mr Justice Nicklin considered the evidence of two other witnesses in proceedings which purported to support Mr Burrows’ alleged propensity to threaten individuals with whom he disagreed. For example, Mr Thompson’s witness statement recalled he was told by a Mr Johnson that Mr Burrows “had turned upside down Mr Johnson’s family home in London and threatened him and his family in March 2022”. Mr Justice Nicklin expressed surprise that Mr Johnson himself had not given evidence in support of the instant anonymity application, rather the Claimant’s solicitors had exhibited a statement of case from separate proceedings between Mr Burrows and Mr Johnson to their witness statement.

Legal Framework (see paragraphs 17 to 26 of the Judgment)

The general rule is that the names of witnesses who give evidence in proceedings in open court will be made public. There is no general exception for cases where private matters are in issue, or indeed where the witness would prefer that his or her name or details of the proceedings were not revealed.
The anonymity order sought by the Claimants is a derogation from open justice. Any derogation from or restriction upon open justice is exceptional and must be based on necessity. The restriction must be shown by “clear and cogent evidence” to fulfil a legitimate aim, be necessary and proportionate.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention may be engaged where parties or witnesses are in physical danger, this requires a real and immediate risk of harm; that is a risk that is objectively verified, present and continuing. The rights guaranteed by those articles are in this context unqualified, hence there is no question of balancing this against any countervailing right, no matter how weighty. The issue does not depend upon the subjective concerns of the applicant, but on the reality of the existence of the risk.
In cases where there is an argued interference with another qualified Convention right, the approach taken by Lord Steyn in Re S [2005] 1 AC 593 [17] and restated in Abbasi
- Firstly, neither article has as such precedence over the other, but the scales do not start evenly balanced. The starting point is a presumption in favour of open justice.
- Second, an intense focus on the comparative importance of the specific rights being claimed in the individual case is necessary.
- Thirdly, the justifications for interfering with or restricting each right must be taken into account.
- Finally, the proportionality or ‘ultimate balancing’ test must be applied to each.
A purely subjective fear of harm is not sufficient to engage Articles 2/3 but may be relevant to the assessment of the Article 8 rights of the person concerned. The Court may be required to estimate the risks arising from publicity. In doing so, the Court can rely upon generic evidence as to the adverse effects of publicity in earlier comparable cases.

Mr Justice Nicklin determined the evidence presented fell “a long way short of being clear and cogent” and that anonymity was unlikely to protect Berlin from the feared consequences in any event, as his identity would likely be immediately apparent from his evidence.

[32] The evidence that Berlin gives about his fears of potential reprisal are very general and highly speculative. They are not objectively substantiated. In reality, the evidence of a supposed threat to Berlin is limited to the evidence given, not directly by Mr Johnson, but on his behalf, of an incident relating to Mr Burrows and fears of unspecified threats from unidentified former associates. The risk from Mr Burrows is alleged to arise from the incident from March 2022 when Mr Burrows is alleged to have turned up outside Mr Johnson’s home at 9.00 at night, being drunk, threatening and abusive. However, that was a single incident in the context of an existing dispute that, although no doubt upsetting and unpleasant, does not appear to have been particularly serious. It does not begin to demonstrate that Mr Burrows is a man who has a history of threatening or using violence and that he credibly presents a risk of doing so towards Berlin.

Mr Justice Nicklin refused permission to appeal, although the temporary reporting restriction will continue until any renewed application to the Court of Appeal has been resolved.

The High Court’s decision follows the trajectory of transparency that this blog considered back in April and the importance of a party seeking anonymity providing compelling evidence as to the likelihood and severity of future risk.