Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP (No. 2): SC 23 Jun 2010

The claimant had object to a Control order made against him and against a decision that he be deported. He had been protected by an anonymity order, but the Court now considered whether it should be continued.
Held: AP had already by the control order been made to live in a town where he had no family and few acquaintances, and where there was racist activity. To be identified as a terrorist subject would carry significant risks. No submission had been made that any special circumstances existed to suggest a public interest in his identification, and ‘the Court . . concluded that, in this particular case, the public interest, in publishing a full report of the proceedings and judgment which identifies AP, has to give way to the need to protect AP from the risk of violence. Similarly, in this particular case, that public interest would not justify curtailing AP’s right to respect for his private and family life. ‘

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Saville, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Clarke, Sir John Dyson SCJ
[2010] UKSC 26, [2010] WLR (D) 154, [2010] 1 WLR 1652
Bailii, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
England and Wales
CitedRegina v Westminster City Council, Ex parte P 1998
Sir Christopher Staughton warned that ‘when both sides agreed that information should be kept from the public, that was when the court had to be most vigilant.’ . .
See AlsoSecretary of State for The Home Department v AP SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day.
Held: . .
See AlsoAP v Secretary Of State for the Home Department CA 15-Jul-2009
. .
CitedCampbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd (MGN) (No 1) HL 6-May-2004
The claimant appealed against the denial of her claim that the defendant had infringed her right to respect for her private life. She was a model who had proclaimed publicly that she did not take drugs, but the defendant had published a story . .
CitedIn re Guardian News and Media Ltd and Others; HM Treasury v Ahmed and Others SC 27-Jan-2010
Proceedings had been brought to challenge the validity of Orders in Council which had frozen the assets of the claimants in those proceedings. Ancillary orders were made and confirmed requiring them not to be identified. As the cases came to the . .
CitedTimes Newspapers Ltd v Secretary of State for the Home Department and AY Admn 17-Oct-2008
The newspaper applied to challenge the protection of the identity of the defendant subject to a control order under the 2005 Act. It said that there was no basis for the making of the order without first considering the Human Rights need for open . .

Cited by:
CitedAMM v HXW QBD 7-Oct-2010
The claimant had sought and been granted an injunction to prevent the defendant publicising matters which had passed between them and which were he said private.
Held: The jurisdiction to grant such injunctions was now established. Publication . .
CitedIndependent Police Complaints Commission v Warner and Others QBD 17-Feb-2012
The applicant had mistakenly disclosed confidential personal information in answer to a data request. It sought an injunction restricting its redistribution after the recipient refused to return it and threatened to pass it on. The defendant said . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Media

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.417706