Factual and Procedural Background
The first claimant, hereafter referred to as Plaintiff, was previously involved in serious and organised crime. On 1 April 2021, Plaintiff was sentenced at the Crown Court at The City by Judge Sherwin for 23 offences including Class A drug offences, arson with intent to endanger life, and burglary. The sentence was 15 months imprisonment suspended for two years, significantly discounted due to Plaintiff’s status as an Assisting Offender under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and his substantial cooperation with law enforcement, which contributed to the conviction of approximately 29 individuals.
Due to the Plaintiff’s informer role, there was a recognized and serious risk to his life and to two female relatives (the second and third claimants, hereafter collectively referred to as Co-Claimants). To protect them, they live under new identities and reporting restriction orders (RROs) were issued prohibiting identification. These RROs expired on 23 April 2021, prompting the claimants to initiate a claim for a permanent injunction contra mundum to prohibit publication of any identifying material, relying on their rights under Articles 2, 3, and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Interim relief was granted by Murray J on 23 April 2021 and subsequently extended pending final judgment. The evidence included witness statements from the claimants, law enforcement officers (anonymised as Witness C), and the claimants’ solicitor. Some evidence was withheld from the public to prevent identification of the claimants.
The evidence demonstrated a high and escalating risk of death or serious harm from organised crime groups (OCGs) seeking retribution for Plaintiff’s assistance in securing convictions. The law enforcement agency assessed the threat to the claimants as “extreme,” with multiple OCGs actively seeking them across the UK.
The claim was brought against "Persons Unknown" to obtain a contra mundum injunction, binding all persons worldwide, to prevent dissemination of identifying information that could lead to harm.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the court should grant a permanent contra mundum injunction to prohibit publication of identifying information to protect the claimants’ rights under Articles 2, 3, and/or 8 of the ECHR.
- How to balance the claimants’ fundamental rights to life and protection from serious harm against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR.
- Whether the exceptional Venables jurisdiction applies to this case, given the claimants’ circumstances and the nature of the threat.
- The procedural propriety of granting an injunction contra mundum against "Persons Unknown" and the implications for service and media notification.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] Fam 430 |
Establishment of the jurisdiction to grant lifetime anonymity injunctions to protect individuals at risk of death or serious injury. |
Recognised as the foundational case for the jurisdiction invoked to protect claimants from harm due to their involvement in criminal proceedings. |
| X (formerly Bell) v O'Brien [2003] EMLR 37 |
Application of anonymity orders for claimants who committed serious crimes as children. |
Supported the principle that serious offenders may be granted anonymity where there is a risk of serious harm. |
| Carr v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005] EWHC 971 (QB) |
Protection of individuals associated with notorious crimes through injunctions. |
Illustrated the use of injunctions to prevent disclosure of identifying information. |
| A v Persons Unknown [2017] EMLR 11 |
Further application of injunctions to protect individuals at risk from violent retaliation. |
Reinforced the principles governing the balance of rights under the ECHR. |
| RXG v Ministry of Justice [2019] EWHC 2026 (QB), [2020] QB 703 |
Detailed articulation of principles governing restrictions on freedom of expression to protect rights under Articles 2, 3, and 8. |
Provided the ten principles guiding the exercise of the Venables jurisdiction, heavily relied upon by the court. |
| D v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 157 (QB) |
Application of the Venables jurisdiction and balancing of rights in cases of serious threat. |
Used as a recent authority applying the principles from RXG to similar factual circumstances. |
| Attorney General v McKeag [2019] EWHC 241 (QB) |
Recognition that offenders retain their civil rights and may seek protection from threats of violence. |
Supported the principle that the rule of law protects all, including serious offenders, from vigilante harm. |
| Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253 |
Standard for granting interim injunctions affecting freedom of expression under s12(3) Human Rights Act 1998. |
Clarified that the applicant must show a likelihood of success, with some flexibility where consequences of disclosure are grave. |
| In re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1, [2010] 2 AC 697 |
Limits on freedom of expression where publication risks serious harm or death. |
Quoted to support the view that freedom of expression does not extend to publication causing serious harm or death. |
| Khuja v Times Newspapers Ltd [2017] UKSC 49, [2019] AC 161 |
Balancing media freedom with privacy rights and the requirement for clear justification for restrictions. |
Referenced to emphasise the strong presumption in favour of open court reporting and the need for cogent reasons to restrict it. |
| Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6, [2019] 1 WLR 1471 |
Clarification of the exceptional nature of contra mundum orders and their binding effect on non-parties. |
Supported the procedural legitimacy of granting injunctions binding all persons, including unnamed defendants. |
| Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 303, [2020] 1 WLR 2802 |
Procedural principles for claims against "Persons Unknown" and contra mundum injunctions. |
Confirmed that "Persons Unknown" claims are exceptional and justified in certain circumstances without naming defendants. |
| London Borough of Barking & Dagenham v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 1201 (QB) |
Procedural authority for claims brought contra mundum without naming defendants. |
Reinforced that naming defendants is unnecessary for contra mundum relief and service may be dispensed with. |
| NT1 v Google LLC [2018] EWHC 261 (QB) |
Requirement to notify the media of applications affecting freedom of expression. |
Applied to confirm the appropriateness of media notification via the Injunctions Alert Service. |
| XXX v Camden London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1468, [2020] 4 WLR 165 |
Principles governing anonymisation of witnesses and related reporting restrictions. |
Supported the anonymisation and reporting restrictions applied to Witness C to prevent identification of the claimants. |
| Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB) |
Observations on the impracticality of naming all persons bound by contra mundum orders. |
Referenced to justify dispensing with service and naming defendants in contra mundum claims. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the evidence presented, which demonstrated a significant and credible risk of death or serious physical harm to the claimants if identifying information were published. The risk arises not from the claimants’ own criminal conduct but from their role as informers and witnesses against organised crime groups, which actively seek retribution. The court applied the principles articulated in RXG, particularly the high threshold for engaging Articles 2 and 3, requiring cogent evidence of a real and immediate risk of serious harm or death.
The court found that the evidence convincingly met this threshold, negating the need to balance these unqualified rights against the right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The court also acknowledged the importance of freedom of expression and open justice but concluded that the limited restrictions imposed were proportionate and justified by the exceptional circumstances.
Procedurally, the court confirmed the appropriateness of granting a contra mundum injunction binding all persons, including unnamed defendants, given the impracticality of identifying and serving all potential parties. The claimants had properly notified the media through established channels, and no opposition was raised.
The court also justified the anonymisation of a key witness and the withholding of sensitive evidence to prevent indirect identification of the claimants, consistent with established principles.
Holding and Implications
The court granted the interim injunction sought by the claimants.
Holding: The court granted a contra mundum injunction prohibiting publication of photographs, images, descriptions, or other material capable of identifying the claimants, thereby protecting their rights under Articles 2, 3, and/or 8 of the ECHR.
Implications: This decision ensures the safety and protection of the claimants from serious harm or death by preventing dissemination of identifying information to hostile organised crime groups. It confirms the application of the Venables jurisdiction in circumstances where the threat arises from the claimant’s role as an informer rather than their own crimes, thus supporting the criminal justice system by incentivising cooperation. The order restricts media reporting only to the extent necessary to protect the claimants, without prohibiting reporting of the criminal proceedings generally. No new precedent was set beyond the careful application of established principles and procedural rules.