In the case of AYZ v BZA, the EAT granted lifelong anonymity to the Claimant in circumstances where she had filed a police report alleging a sexual assault by the Respondent in earlier unrelated proceedings. The EAT was persuaded that this was necessary to comply with the requirements of section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 (SOAA).
What happened in this case?
The Claimant sought anonymity in Employment Tribunal proceedings. The Employment Judge denied the application on the basis that it would derogate from the principle of open justice. However, in reaching that decision, the Judge was not aware that the Claimant had previously made a report to the police that she had been sexually assaulted by the Respondent. The allegation concerned events that were not related to the Employment Tribunal proceedings.
The Claimant appealed to the EAT on the basis that she should be granted lifelong anonymity in relation to the Employment Tribunal and EAT proceedings according to section 1 of SOAA. She argued that lifelong anonymity was necessary because she had reported an allegation of a sexual offence to the police. Without anonymisation in both the Employment Tribunal and EAT proceedings, there was a significant risk that a keen-eyed reader of the judgments may be able to piece together relevant information to ascertain her identity and/or the Respondent’s identity.
What was decided?
The EAT decided to grant permanent anonymity to the Claimant in both the Employment Tribunal and EAT proceedings.
This decision was based on the requirements of section 1 of SOAA which mandates anonymity for those who have made allegations of certain sexual offences covered by the Act. Even though the Respondent had not been questioned, arrested or charged, the Claimant’s complaint still amounted to an “allegation” of a relevant sexual offence.
The EAT concluded that the only way to ensure compliance with SOAA was to anonymise the Claimant’s name in all related proceedings, even though this meant she was gaining permanent anonymity through a “side-wind”.
In reaching its decision, the EAT was also keen to point out that it considered the Employment Judge’s decision correct based on the circumstances of the case as it stood at the time. However, the new information about the police report, when read alongside other case law, meant that the EAT was compelled to grant permanent anonymity.
What does this mean for employers?
For employers, this case underscores the importance of understanding the legal requirements for anonymity in cases involving allegations of sexual offences. Employers should be aware that even where an allegation is not part of the Employment Tribunal proceedings, it may still impact those proceedings if it involves a sexual offence.
The case highlights the need for employers to handle such allegations with sensitivity and in compliance with legal standards to protect the identities of those involved.
BDBF is a leading employment law firm based at Bank in the City of London. If you would like to discuss any issues relating to the content of this article, please contact James Hockley (JamesHockley@bdbf.co.uk) or Amanda Steadman (AmandaSteadman@bdbf.co.uk) or your usual BDBF contact.
