Anonymity beyond the courtroom: Abbasi and another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15

The United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) decision in Abbasi and another v Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Haastrup v King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2025] UKSC 15 is explored in this case commentary. The UKSC clarified the legal basis and duration of reporting restriction orders that protect clinicians’ anonymity in cases where disputes exist in relation to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment of children. The commentary evaluates the manner in which the court treats the relationship between the court’s inherent jurisdiction, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the competing rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, notably Articles 8 (the right to respect for private and family life) and Article 10 (freedom of expression). It is now clear that continued anonymity must be based on established domestic causes of action and must normally be limited in time. However, it is contended that the UKSC has adopted an excessively formalistic approach to risk. By stressing that individualised evidence of harm must exist before anonymity can be extended, the UKSC’s approach does not sufficiently recognise the anticipatory and systemic risks that clinicians face, especially in an era of online harassment and social media. It is concluded in the commentary that, even though the UKSC has strengthened constitutional coherence and the principle of open justice, important questions about how the law ought to respond to foreseeable, collective harms in healthcare remain unresolved.