# Anonymity of patients in court judgments

**URL:** <https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/anonymity-of-patients-in-court-judgments/4761>\
**Category:** Other\
**Created:** [5 December 2025 23:59 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/anonymity-of-patients-in-court-judgments/4761 "2025-12-05T23:59:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ZacSussex](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/z/e8c25b/32.png) [@ZacSussex](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/ZacSussex)\
**Post date:** [5 December 2025 23:59 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/anonymity-of-patients-in-court-judgments/4761/1 "2025-12-05T23:59:02Z")

</div>

Continuing the discussion from [Lawfulness of earlier first statutory referrals by the MOJ (and the relevance of the change in status cases)](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/lawfulness-of-earlier-first-statutory-referrals-by-the-moj-and-the-relevance-of-the-change-in-status-cases/4181):

Off topic a little but I wish they spent more time on the anonymity matter. The UKUT grants anonymity by default - should this judgment change the way it approaches those cases, needing a full balancing act each time?

I don’t have your eidetic memory Jonathan but I can’t recall any recent cases that named someone who wasn’t either (a) seeking a public hearing, or (b) a transferred prisoner.

As this case was on statutory construction, on the facts it was never going to benefit AC personally.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/user_avatar/forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/jonathan/32/88_2.png) [@Jonathan](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/u/Jonathan)\
**Post date:** [6 December 2025 00:19 UTC](https://forum.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/t/anonymity-of-patients-in-court-judgments/4761/2 "2025-12-06T00:19:16Z")

</div>

There are some relevant cases here: [Anonymisation cases](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Special:Drilldown/Cases?Subject=Anonymisation%20cases). (There are definitely some Court of Protection cases that aren’t currently included there and should be, though some of them will be here: [Reporting restriction order cases](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Special:Drilldown/Cases?Subject=Reporting+restriction+order+cases).)

The case that went the furthest was [R (C) v SSJ [2016] UKSC 2](https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/R_(C)_v_SSJ_(2016)_UKSC_2). Here are the two paragraphs that seem most relevant to the Upper Tribunal.

> 1. … After the 2007 Act, an appeal lies on a point of law to the Upper Tribunal. Rule 37(1) of The Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 (SI 2008/2698) provides that all hearings must be in public, with some exceptions, which include the Tribunal’s power, in rule 37(2), to direct that a hearing, or part of it, is to be held in private. However, rule 14(7) repeats the rule in the First-tier Tribunal that “Unless the Upper Tribunal gives a direction to the contrary, information about mental health cases and the names of any persons concerned in such cases must not be made public”. There is thus a presumption of anonymity in both tiers of the tribunal system. The issue for them, therefore, is whether to make an exception if the patient wants to waive his anonymity: see the principles helpfully discussed in _AH v West London Mental Health Trust_ [[2010] UKUT 264 (AAC)](https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2010/264.html) and [[2011] UKUT 74 (AAC)](https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2011/74.html).

> 1. There is, as already explained, no real risk that the patient’s confidence will be breached against his will in the course of proceedings either in the First-tier and Upper Tribunals or in the Court of Protection. The real risk arises if a case reaches the High Court or Court of Appeal.