A High Court judge has said there was no ‘legitimate reason’ to anonymise civil servants in a judgment concerning the parole of a rapist who has spent 41 years in prison. Declining a request to redact the names of junior civil servants, the Honourable Mr Justice Fordham said nobody would be imperilled by his decision. 

The judge was ruling on the Parole Board recommendation that Robert Sneddon, 70, sentenced to life in 1982, be transferred to open conditions. Sneddon was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 10 years in July 1982. Following assessments, the recommendation was rejected. 

In Robert Sneddon v Secretary of State for Justice, the judge found a claim for judicial review of the decision successful and remitted the matter to the justice secretary for reconsideration. 

After a draft judgment was circulated the government invited the judge to redact the civil servants’ names as they were redacted on relevance grounds when documents were served. However the judge noted that no submissions in relation to redactions or exclusions had been made and that names were used in open court.

He said: ‘I was unpersuaded that there is a legitimate reason to replace names with pretend names, job descriptions or letters… I wrote my judgment giving a natural narrative. Naming people who are part of the story is benign. Open justice is promoted. There is no special treatment.

‘He added: Judges should not write a judgment asking: "is there a necessity for giving this name?" The question has to be whether there is a necessity for protecting someone’s identity. Everyone was doing their job, to the best of their ability. Nobody is imperilled. I cannot see that naming people and how they did their jobs is contrary to any legitimate interest.’

 

This article is now closed for comment.