Daily Mail publisher loses attempt to lift anonymity order

The Court of Appeal has refused an application to lift the anonymity order protecting the identity of a woman who lacks the capacity to litigate. The case is SA v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1065 (the Home Secretary was an interested party, the application addressed in this decision had been made by Associated Newspapers Limited). Yes yes I know it is the Daily Mail but I was still appalled when I realised which case they were trying to overturn anonymity in, because of the extreme vulnerability of SA.

There had apparently been media coverage of the case previously, before SA had lost her mental capacity and this seems to be what prompted the ongoing interest and application in this case. It appears from paragraph 30 of the decision that SA was aware of the Daily Mail’s interest in her case a few years earlier and evidence was provided that this had caused deterioration in her mental health.  

The court refused the publisher’s application, stating that the article 10 rights of the press did not outweigh the serious harm likely to be caused to SA if she was named:

I accept Mr Gajjar’s characterisation of his client as an individual falling outside the ordinary class of persons to whom litigation and any ensuing publicity about it would be likely to bring about a degree of mental discomfort which would be an acceptable price to pay for open justice. She is seriously mentally unwell. Her condition is chronic and incurable. She has lacked the capacity to look after her own financial affairs and to litigate for some years, and although the resumption of medication appears to have helped to overcome some of the more disturbing features of her illness in early 2023, the Consultant Psychologist who had the advantage of treating her from December 2019 to March 2021 has expressed a professional view that lifting the anonymity order would present a serious risk to her psychological stability. That is not generic evidence, it is focused, it makes sense, and in my view it is compelling.

In addition to the lifting of anonymity, the publishers sought disclosure of an unredacted version of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision in the case, the evidence on behalf of SA in her appeal against the revocation order, and the skeleton arguments by both parties in all of levels of the appeal. SA’s lawyers accepted that that the publisher was entitled to disclosure of the skeleton arguments and the court ordered disclosure, subject to redactions to preserve anonymity. The application for an unredacted version of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision was refused, as was the request for SA’s supporting evidence.