NAB v Serco Ltd & Anor
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE BEAN
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Media Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Guardian News applied to obtain a confidential Serco report relating to sexual assault allegations at Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre. The court ruled that the document was a public document under CPR 31.22(1)(a) and allowed the Guardian access to publish it, with conditions to maintain anonymity.
Judgment
Mr Justice Bean :
Guardian News and Media Ltd (“the Guardian ”) apply under CPR 31.22 (1) for a declaration that NAB, the Claimant in a civil action against Serco Limited and others, may lawfully supply the Guardian with a copy of a document disclosed by Serco in those proceedings; or alternatively for permission to have the document supplied to them by the Claimant’s solicitors. Serco resist the application and in the alternative cross-apply for an order under CPR 31.22 (2) prohibiting the Claimant and her solicitors from supplying the document to the Guardian or others.
NAB was from 4 th October 2010 until 17 th February 2011 an immigration detainee at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre, which is and was operated by Serco Ltd. In January 2011 she made a complaint alleging that on three occasions in the preceding two months at Yarl’s Wood she had been sexually assaulted and harassed by a male nurse (whom I will call “T”) employed by Serco.
Serco appointed their deputy head of security and operations to investigate the alleged inappropriate behaviour by T towards the claimant. A report, each page of which is marked “Serco in Confidence”, was produced on 21 st January 2011.
On 24 th November 2011 NAB issued a claim for damages in this court against three defendants: Serco, the Home Office and the Chief Constable of the Bedfordshire Police. Her claim against Serco was in respect of the three alleged sexual assaults by T referred to above, and argued that “each and every touching of the Claimant by [T] which was not justified by his professional role amounted to a battery for which the First Defendant is vicariously liable.”
Against the Home Office NAB claimed damages for false imprisonment in respect of all or part of her period of detention. The claim against the Bedfordshire Police was based on an allegation that they failed to conduct an effective investigation of the assault allegations: it was settled at an early stage and I need say no more about it.
Following the close of pleadings in NAB’s claim Serco served lists of documents on 15 th April and 4 th June 2013. On 16 th May 2013 the claimant’s solicitor Harriet Wistrich made a witness statement in what was still at that stage a claim against both Serco and the Home Office. Paragraph 2 records that the purpose of the statement was to set out the steps taken by NAB to complain about the conduct of the nurse who assaulted her and about the investigations into her original complaint