In this guide, police inquest specialist Jack Horlock takes us through the basics of anonymity applications. Jack will be bringing this to life in a 30-minute “pulse” webinar on 8 September 2026, where he will walk us through a recent case study involving anonymity for witnesses.
Sign up to our Anonymity for witnesses webinarThere are good reasons why certain police witnesses may need, or wish, to remain anonymous when giving evidence at an inquest. But anonymity is not the starting point. Forces need to advance a compelling case for anonymity which allows a coroner to justify departing from the fundamental principle of open justice, the giving of a name and a personality to witnesses, and freedom of expression. This short guide is intended to help those faced with applying for anonymity navigate the tests and advance the strongest application possible.
The tests
In Re Officer L [2007] UKHL 36, the House of Lords set out the way that coroners should approach the tests. At [29], Lord Carswell said:
…the exercise to be carried out by the tribunal faced with a request for anonymity should be the application of the common law test, with an excursion, if the facts require it, into the territory of article 2.
One must, then, look at both the common law test, and the article 2 test.
The article 2 test
In Re Officer L, Lord Carswell explained that an ‘excursion’ into article 2 is only necessary if, viewed objectively, there would be a real and immediate risk to the witness’s life were they to give evidence without anonymity. If so, the House of Lords opined that the tribunal “would ordinarily have little difficulty in determining that it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to give the witnesses a degree of anonymity”.
In that case, that would “conclude the exercise” because the presence of the real and immediate risk would require the imposition of anonymity.
If there is no such risk, then one must return from the excursion into article 2 (indeed, it “drops out of consideration”) and consider the common law test
The common law test
Coroners have a duty to ensure that the inquest procedure is fair, bearing in mind: the subjective fear of the witness(s); the degree to which those fears are objectively justified; and the effect of anonymity on the witness and the inquiry itself. These must then be balanced against the important principle of open justice, any impact on the proceedings, and the media’s right to freedom of expression.
Subjective fears
These can include the witness’s fears for their life, or harm to themselves or their family, falling short of an article 2 risk, or fears for safety or wellbeing. Even if those fears are not well-founded, so long as they are not irrational, vague, or unspecified, they may be taken into consideration. In determining the weight, the coroner will consider:
- the seriousness of the fear and its impact on the witness;
- the reason(s) for the fear;
- the likely effect of anonymity in removing or reducing that fear;
- the effect on the witness of giving evidence with or without special measures (including anonymity);
- the effect on the public’s perception of the impartiality of the inquiry if anonymity is granted;
- the likely effect on the inquiry’s ability to arrive at the truth, if it refuses or grants the application in whole or in part; and
- the extent to which the witness’s subjective fears are objectively justified.
Objective factors
The coroner will consider any objective factors present, and weigh them in the balance, including:
- whether objective reason for anonymity is established;
- the weight of the subjective fear;
- any previous incidents of relevance;
- external evidence re harm and safety;
- the views of others in a similar position (e.g. siblings, relatives);
- the evidence of the witness in context and the role of the witness in the wider case; and
- the evidence of other connected witnesses.
Other relevant factors
Aside from the witnesses’ own fears, the coroner must consider “all consequences of granting or refusing the orders sought”. In the context of policing, this can include, for example, whether a failure to grant anonymity would
- prevent a specialist from continuing in their current role, thereby depriving the force of a valuable resource; and/or
- prevent the officer carrying out specialist roles in the future that require their identity be concealed/unknown, e.g., royal and close protection, covert work, counter-terror ops etc.
The anonymity order
Those advancing applications for anonymity should make it clear what the terms of the order being sought are. Below is a useful starting point, but each case will require its own consideration.
A comprehensive anonymity order will be one that orders that:
- the name and identifying details of the witness be withheld in disclosure and evidence within the inquests (anonymity);
- a pseudonym or cipher, as used above, be used for the witness for the purposes of the inquests;
- when the witness is giving evidence, no question may be asked (or answer given) which might lead to the witness’s identification;
- when giving evidence, the witness be screened from public view when giving evidence i.e. they can only be seen by the coroner, jury, “approved interested persons” and their lawyers;
- the witness, when attending court to give evidence, be permitted to enter and exit the court by an appropriate, non-public route; and
- supportive reporting restrictions be ordered under section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, prohibiting publication of the witness’s name and identifying features and preventing reporting which would infringe the protective measures.
The application
The starting point for every application must be the evidence underpinning it. The evidence should take the form of:
- witness statements (suitably redacted prior to disclosure) from the witness themselves, and an “institutional” statement from a suitably senior witness, who can be identified and give evidence in support of the application if required;
- where witnesses assert medical or health-based reasons for anonymity, obtain medical evidence of those conditions or concerns (for example, a report from their GP or other treating clinician);
- risk assessments that do one or both of:
a. demonstrating that there is a real and immediate risk to the witness’s life should anonymity not be granted (if advancing an application rooted in article 2);
b. demonstrating the degree to which the subjective fears of the witness are objectively justified.
Redactions & jigsaw identification
While patently obvious, its importance justifies its inclusion in this piece. Any identifying material in the statements must be redacted from the statements prior to disclosure to the IPs and the media. unredacted copies should be supplied to the coroner for their eyes only, together with redacted copies for disclosure. Make this distinction obvious when filing the application with the coroner.
While some identifying material will be obvious (names, addresses, family members etc.), don’t forget about the risk of “jigsaw” identification. Read all of the evidence. Read it again. Consider each line in the context of all the other evidence to consider whether a witness is identifiable by piecing together two or more otherwise seemingly innocuous pieces of information.
Jigsaw identification doesn’t just apply within the evidence. When there are multiple witnesses seeking anonymity (for example, a deployed firearms unit), consider the extent to which the identification of one, perhaps lesser-involved officer, might lead to the identification of other officers on the unit.
Procedure
Once filed, the coroner will serve your application on the other IPs and the media. The coroner may determine the application on the papers or, more likely, may arrange a PIRH at which they will invite oral evidence and representations. All IPs may make representations and examine the witness(es). The media may do the same.
Witness care
Assuming there is no conflict and that the witnesses are under the “umbrella” of the force’s representation, they should be informed early of the process. They should be briefed about the fact that the coroner has to apply a test, and that there is always the chance that the coroner will not grant anonymity. Expectations should be set early. Witnesses should be given the opportunity to meet the lawyers involved and ask questions. Often the PIM is a good person to help coordinate and liaise with the witnesses, if there are several.
The application for anonymity should include a request for an embargo – of, say, seven days – following the coroner’s decision on anonymity to allow for the witnesses to be informed and to implement any security measures they may wish to do so, should the decision be to refuse anonymity.
Shifting sands?
It would be entirely remiss, in a piece about police anonymity, not to mention the accountability review. The recommendation that officers be afforded anonymity as of right is a recommendation made squarely in the context of criminal proceedings. One might think that, even so, if that recommendation is enacted for criminal proceedings, there would be a ‘trickle down’ into coronial proceedings. There may be logic in that, but it would require either legislation or precedent to enact such a change in coronial proceedings. The author is not aware of any such change, but has his eyes fixed squarely on the horizon. He also has his ear to the ground (and a genuine hope) that the accountability rapid review hasn’t fallen to the bottom of the government’s “to do” list.
