R (IAB and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWCA Civ 66 |
| Year | 2024 |
2024 Jan 24; Feb 2
Judicial review - Practice - Disclosure - Secretaries of State redacting names of junior civil servants when disclosing documents in judicial review proceedings - Whether complying with duty of candour - Whether names of junior civil servants routinely to be redacted from disclosable documents
The claimants brought judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. In purported discharge of their duty of candour, the Secretaries of State disclosed over 500 pages of documents, but many of the documents were redacted without explanation. In particular, the names of “junior civil servants” (ie any civil servants outside the grades that comprised the Senior Civil Service, regardless of age or experience) were omitted. The Secretaries of State applied for the court’s permission to make the redactions, contending that the names of civil servants outside the Senior Civil Service could be redacted from all disclosable documents on grounds of relevance. The judge refused the application.
On appeal by the Secretaries of State—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no basis for the proposition that a defendant in judicial review proceedings could routinely redact documents disclosed in the proceedings so as to remove the names of civil servants (including junior civil servants) or any other detail deemed not directly relevant to the outcome of the dispute; that, rather, a defendant in judicial review proceedings would not fulfil their duty of candour if, save for good and specific reasons, they disclosed documents with redactions of the names of civil servants; that parts of a document disclosed in judicial review proceedings might properly be redacted if the document was concerned with wholly different subject matter from that in issue in the proceedings; that, likewise, it might be justifiable to redact names for reasons of national security or where there was evidence of a real risk to the personal safety of the individual concerned; that, however, the practice of routinely redacting documents in judicial review proceedings was inimical to open government and unsupported by authority; and that, accordingly, the judge had been right to refuse the Secretaries of State’s application (post, paras 24–29, 36–37, 38, 39).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Bean LJ:
Cox v Information Comr
Downes’ Application for Judicial Review, In re
GE Capital Corporate Finance Group Ltd v Bankers Trust Co [
R v Lancashire County Council, Ex p Huddleston [
R (FMA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
R (Hoareau) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
R (Quark Fishing Ltd) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
R (Sneddon) v Secretary of State for Justice
Scott v Scott [
Shah v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd
Tweed v Parades Commission for Northern Ireland
The following additional case was cited in argument:
Guardian News and Media Ltd, In re
The following additional cases, although not cited, were referred to in the skeleton arguments:
Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
Attorney General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [
Department of Health v Information Comr
Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd
Ennis Property Finance Ltd v Thompson
Global Torch Ltd v Apex Global Management Ltd
Grosvenor Hotel, London (No 2), In re [
Home Office v Information Comr (Case No EA/2011/0203) (unreported) 27 March 2012,
Kalma v African Minerals Ltd
Officer L, In re
Practice Guidance (Interim Non-disclosure Orders) [
Quark Fishing Ltd, In re
R v Inland Revenue Comrs, Ex p National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [
R (Al-Sweady) v Secretary of State for Defence
R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 4)
R (Citizens UK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (Gardner) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care
R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
R (Marandi) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court
R (Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2)
R (National Association of Health Stores) v Department of Health
R (Police Superintendents’ Association) v Police Remuneration Review Body
R (Public and Commercial Services Union) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
R (Yalland) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union
RXG v Ministry of Justice
Science Research Council v Nassé [
Various Claimants v Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
WH Holding Ltd v E20 Stadium LLP
ZXC v Bloomberg LP
APPEAL from Swift J
By a claim form issued on 13 June 2023 the claimants, IAB, TT, AM (a child by his litigation friend TT), MB, KK, IAL, NA and AS, applied as against the defendants, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the Home Secretary”) and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“the Levelling Up Secretary”), for judicial review of: (1) the decision of the Levelling Up Secretary to make the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023, which were laid before Parliament on 30 March 2023 in exercise of powers under the Housing Act 2004 and which, if brought into effect, would remove from the scope of the scheme of regulation for houses in multiple occupation contained in Part 2 of the 2004 Act premises used by the Home Secretary in order to accommodate asylum claimants in exercise of his powers under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and (2) the Home Secretary’s policy on how he would use the opportunity that the 2023 Regulations would provide, if brought into effect. In advance of finalisation of the permission stage and of filing detailed grounds of defence, on 20 July, 5 September and 18 October 2023 the Secretaries of State, in order to comply with the duty of candour, served disclosure, containing multiple unexplained redactions.
Johnson J gave permission to proceed with the claim directed to the Home Secretary, but refused permission so far as the claim concerned the decisions of the Levelling Up Secretary.
On the claimants’ renewed application for permission, following an oral hearing, on 19 October 2023 Swift J granted permission to proceed with some of the other grounds of challenge including: (i) that the Levelling Up Secretary had lacked the power under section 254 of the 2004 Act to make the Regulations; and (ii) that decisions by the Home Secretary and the Levelling Up Secretary had not been made consistently (a) with the Tameside obligation to consider relevant matters and to take reasonable steps to obtain relevant information so as to identify relevant matters and (b) in compliance with the public sector equality duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Swift J further directed that consideration of the extent of the redaction of the Secretaries of State’s disclosure, and absence of witness evidence to explain it, should be heard on 25 October 2023 alongside the claimants’ application for interim relief and that the Secretaries of State were to file and serve evidence (if any) by 4 pm on 23 October 2023.
By application notice dated 20 October 2023 the Secretaries of State applied to vary the directions, requesting a separate hearing and additional time for service of evidence and for permission to redact disclosable documents on grounds of relevance and/or legal...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Dana Astra Iooo (a company registered in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Belarus) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
...These are my reasons. 98 Disclosure in this claim is governed by the self-contained regime established by CPR 79.23. In R (IAB) v SSHD [2024] 1 WLR 1916, the Court of Appeal considered whether a defendant in judicial review proceedings was entitled routinely to redact disclosed documents so......
-
R (Wikimedia Foundation and Another) v Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology
...ACD 91, DC R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council [2015] UKSC 51; [2015] 1 WLR 3575; [2016] 1 All ER 95, SC(E) R (IAB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 66; [2024] 1 WLR 1916; [2025] 1 All ER 244, CA R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Ci......
-
Michael Farley (formerly “CR”) v Paymaster (1836) Ltd (trading as Equiniti)
...endorsed by Swift J in R (IAB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 2930 (Admin) [28]–[29] (affirmed on appeal: [2024] EWCA Civ 66). 122 Warby LJ provided a distillation of the principles concerning anonymity orders and other derogations from open justice in R (Marandi) ......
-
Dana Astra IOOO v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
...These are my reasons. 98. Disclosure in this claim is governed by the self-contained regime established by CPR 79.23. In R (IAB) v SSHD [2024] 1 WLR 1916, the Court of Appeal considered whether a defendant in judicial review proceedings was entitled routinely to redact disclosed documents s......
