Challenge To Anonymisation Practice In Child Support Appeals
UPDATE 20/06/2016:
The Interim Hearing in the following case will take place on Wednesday 22 June 2016 at 2 PM at the Upper Tribunal, Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings, Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL.
It has been confirmed that this Hearing will be in open court. This Hearing is a matter of public interest and we urge all those available to attend and exercise their right to attend and hear proceedings in Open Court. The Case Reference No. is CCS/2116/2013.
Charles Adams had a successful child support appeal to the Upper Tribunal but found that the Judgment [2014] UKUT 359 (AAC) appeared anonymised on the Tribunal public database.
Anonymisation was a rubber stamp process following a public hearing of the appeal and done without any judicial direction, and is being challenged in a test case brought by Charles with the assistance of open justice campaigner Dr Michael Pelling. Meanwhile, there being no law or judicial order which prevents full publication of the Judgment, F4J is pleased to assist by lawfully publishing the unanonymised version Adams v. Secretary of State & Green
ADAMS v.SEC.STATE DWP & GREEN [2014] UKUT 0359 (AAC).
Expect the writs and injunctions to start flying soon! But any such will be rigorously contested. Routine anonymisation of any case involving a child is a deliberate practice designed to prevent parents openly publicising injustice and is not acceptable in a free and democratic society where the ability to communicate under one’s own identity is crucial for the spread of ideas, truth, and justice.
The Judgment itself is somewhat arcane, concerning a maverick interpretation by Upper Tribunal Judge Turnbull of the term “beneficial interest” in child support legislation, but that is another story.
