Esper v NHS NW London ICB (Appeal: Anonymity in Committal Proceedings), Re [2023] EWCOP 29

Application for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow, relating to transparency in committal proceedings.

The appellant was defendant in Court of Protection committal proceedings relating to his relative, AB. The contempt was for a breach of an order restricting contact. The appellant was not sanctioned, despite admitting breaches, broadly because the contempt orders had made him comply. This appeal was against the decision to publish the appellant's name while restricting the identification of AB and other parties.

Poole J's judgment provides a thorough review of the rules around contempt and transparency including the interplay of the CPR, FPR and COPR. He also reviews recent case law including EBK and Macpherson. In the light of his analysis, he concludes at [61] that naming the appellant was not discretionary and the judge was right not to be bound by EBK. He was also right to preserve the anonymity of the other parties. Accordingly, he gave permission, as there was a compelling reason for it to be heard given the important point it raised about the interplay of the COPR and PD 2015, but dismissed the appeal.

Read the full judgment on Bailii