Hiding behind the law: Fury as four people mounting fresh High Court bid to block Brexit win the right from judge to stay ANONYMOUS 'because of fears over their safety'
- Claimants say they fear receiving same abuse as Gina Miller got in November
- The group can only be named as W,L, T and B after Mr Justice Cranston's ruling
- They were all either born in EU countries or married to someone who was
- Brexit will leave their futures in the United Kingdom 'in limbo', their lawyers say
- Judge made order barring journalists revealing their names in reports of case
A judge was today accused of blocking 'open justice' after four people mounting a fresh High Court bid to block Brexit were granted anonymity.
The individuals, whose case could delay or even block the UK leaving the EU, have successfully argued their identities should be kept secret from the public.
The four applicants, who were either born in EU countries or married to someone who was, cannot be named after an anonymity order was granted by Mr Justice Cranston today.
The group, who claim Brexit would leave them in 'limbo', asked for anonymity because of the abuse faced by millionaire businesswoman Gina Miller, who needed bodyguards as she took the Government to the Supreme Court over a Parliament vote to trigger Article 50.
But critics have said the public have a right to know who they are.
Ukip MP Douglas Carswell told MailOnline: 'In a civilised country, every individual has a right to take a case to court - and respected for it. But the rest of us should have the right to know who is trying to frustrate the referendum result. It's only fair.'
New Brexit case: Four people bringing a new High Court case linked to Brexit have won anonymity by a judge after they used the example of businesswoman Gina Miller, pictured with bodyguards at the Supreme Court last month
Row: Mr Justice Cranston today said the four had a strong case and made an order barring journalists from revealing their names. Ukip MP Douglas Carswell told MailOnline that the public has a right to know who they are
The new group can only be named as W,L, T and B but the press intends to appeal the ruling at the High Court today.
Tory MP Philip Davies told MailOnline: 'It doesn't surprise me that these people are embarrassed about what they are doing.
'The British people deserve to know who it is that is trying to subvert the will of the electorate.
'If they are embarrassed or ashamed of what they are doing they shouldn't be doing it. If they are proud of what they are doing then they shouldn't fear being identified and scrutinised.'
One of the barristers involved in the fresh claim, S Chelvan of No5 Barristers Chambers, told The Guardian that at a full hearing the four would be seeking a declaration 'that the UK cannot withdraw from the EEA without the approval of HM Treasury and an act of Parliament.
'These are ordinary working men and women who have decided to make their futures in the UK and wish the UK to be their permanent home.
'One has mixed nationality, one is a non-EEA national but married to an EEA national. We are trying to highlight the various types of people who will be left in a state of limbo following our withdrawal from the EU.'
Mr Justice Cranston today said the four had a strong case and made an order barring journalists from revealing their names.
He has given gave media organisations permission to challenge his order after a reporter raised concerns about the principle of open justice being undermined.
Lawyers representing the four outlined detail of the case, and arguments for anonymity, at a preliminary High Court hearing in London.
They indicated that the four wanted a judge to analyse the Government's EU withdrawal plans.
They would also raise issues relating to people of mixed nationality living in Britain who might be left in 'limbo' as a result of Brexit, the court heard.
The four claimants are using the example of businesswoman Gina Miller, the public face of the most high profile Brexit court challenge currently at the Supreme Court, who has received death threats since winning the High Court case in November.
Lawyers said a claim had been launched against David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, but no date had been fixed for a final hearing.
Lawyers for the four claimants said a claim had been launched against Brexit Secretary David Davis, in a case that attempts to stop Britain leaving the European Economic Area
Ministers are waiting for Supreme Court justices to rule on a Brexit challenge spearheaded by businesswoman Gina Miller.
Government lawyers appealed after judges at a High Court hearing ruled that Parliament must have the final say on invoking Article 50, which formally begins the withdrawal process.
Lawyers for the four people behind the latest litigation said the fresh claim would centre on Britain's links with the European Economic Area.
They said the four would argue that parliamentary approval was needed to quit the EEA.
They said Ms Miller, an investment fund manager, had been threatened, and evidence suggested that the four people could also be at risk.
Mrs Miller said she beefed up protections after a £5,000 reward was offered on social media to anyone who ran her over.
The details emerged as the equalities watchdog appealed for politicians on both sides of the bitter EU row to tone down their rhetoric.
Nigel Farage has also spoken of his fears for his safety in the wake of the referendum amid a welter of death threats.
he case is due to be considered by the Supreme Court before Christmas, with a victory for the challenge potentially delaying Mrs May's plans to trigger Article 50 by March.
Mrs Miller said: 'There is a security burden that I had not envisaged.
'I have had to take measures for myself and my staff as well as for the business and website — all in all, we're talking £50,000-£60,000.
'It may be more, depending on what happens at the Supreme Court. Somebody has put a bounty on my head on social media, offering £5,000 to anybody who runs me over.'
FORMER LABOUR MP TURNED JUDGE GAVE ORDER BANNING GROUP FROM BEING NAMED
Mr Justice Ross Cranston is an Australian by birth and was an academic and QC before he entered politics as a Labour MP, becoming Tony Blair's Solicitor General
The High Court judge who granted anonymity to four people bringing a Brexit case is a former Labour MP.
Mr Justice Ross Cranston is an Australian by birth and was an academic and QC before he entered politics.
He first stood for Labour in Richmond, Yorkshire, in 1992 and lost to William Hague by 33,000 votes.
He was then elected MP for Dudley North at the 1997 general election abd was then appointed Solicitor General by Tony Blair, staying in post between 1998 and 2001.
In 2005 he announced he as standing down as an MP and after working at the London School of Economics for two years he was appointed as a High Court judge in 2007.
Critics at the time at the time it was strange appointment because it was only two years after he left full time politics.
He has been involved in a number of controversial cases.
In 2008 a High Court bid to ban hunt protesters from a private estate came to an unexpected when it emerged he - the judge in the case - had voiced strong opposition to hunting.
When he was MP for Dudley North in 2000 he described fox-hunting as 'not a sport, but a barbaric and cruel activity' in a statement to a local newspaper, the Stourbridge News.
He then went on to 'welcome the chance to vote...and consign this brutal practice to the dustbin of history'.
In 2013 he ruled a former top diplomat should have the right to substantial compensation from the government because the ruled the Foreign Office let him down when he was wrongly accused of touching the rear of a senior politician's wife.
John Yapp - Britain's man in Belize until his sudden suspension in June 2008 - said he was left 'shell-shocked' when his superiors confronted him with the bizarre allegation levelled by an opposition politician from the central American state.
He was suspended from his post as High Commissioner with immediate effect, London's High Court heard, and never re-engaged at ambassadorial level.
That allegation was described as 'unfounded and scurrilous' by Mr Yapp and Mr Justice Cranston ruled that the FCO 'acted in breach of contract and in breach of its duty of care in withdrawing Mr Yapp from his post without affording him fair treatment'.
But in a previous anonymity case he rulked that a murderer should not be allowed to be anonymous because he committed 'appalling and horrific' murders.
But the man, who can only be named as 'X', appealed to the Supreme Court, where he won his case.
Millionaire Gina Miller and the other campaigners trying to block Britain’s exit from the EU
Ministers are waiting for Supreme Court justices to rule on a Brexit challenge spearheaded by businesswoman Gina Miller bewfore decisiong
Millionaire Gina Miller, a hairdresser born in Brazil and the director of a lobby group originally founded by Lord Mandelson are among the people who used the courts to try to thwart Brexit.
Ms Miller has been named a 'hero' and 'woman of the year' by supporters backing her decision to take the Government to court.
On each day of the Supreme Court Mrs Miller came into court flanked by bodyguards after abuse and threats, including by some people who have been arrested.
Often described as a former model – though it is not clear exactly when she was modelling – three-times married Mrs Miller styles herself as an investment guru and philanthropist.
Initially Mrs Miller wanted a career as a barrister but claims she was deterred by sexism.
Instead, she took jobs in marketing and events management before venturing into investment.
Her second marriage was to controversial financier Jon Maguire whose fund later lost around £120million.
She walked away and met current husband Alan Miller in 2002 when they worked at New Star, a firm based across the road from Harrods in London’s Knightsbridge.
Mr Miller – now known as Mr Hedge Fund – left his wife Melissa and there followed a bitterly acrimonious divorce battle in which he was forced to hand over a record £5million after less than three years of marriage.
At the time, he was reportedly worth £17.5million. Today the balding, bespectacled financier is worth nearer £30million.
Her court battle has been designed to stop Theresa May using the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 - a ruling is due in the coming weeks.
Hairdresser Deir Dos Santos and a lobby group founded by Lord Mandelson have also instructed lawyers to challenge designed to thwart Brexit
Whitehall insiders say that, if the Government loses, a one-line Bill will be published immediately asking Parliament to give authority for the Prime Minister to trigger Article 50.
The court battle that plunged Britain into a constitutional crisis may have been led by Gina Miller, but it was started by a mysterious hairdresser who was born in Brazil.
Few had heard of Deir Dos Santos. He has no legal expertise and it is unclear where he developed his niche interest in the minutiae of the British constitution.
Even more puzzlingly, he actually voted for Brexit. But Mr Dos Santos, 37, who holds both Brazilian and British passports, apparently took exception to the way Theresa May was going about it.
Flamboyant plumbing tycoon Charlie Mullins – a dedicated Remainer and key backer of the legal challenge – also joined them at the Royal Courts of Justice.
The founder of Pimlico Plumbers, who describes himself as the ‘plumber to the stars’, bobbed up and down in front of the cameras wearing a tight-fitting pinstriped suit. He also illegally parked his blue Bentley on the pavement outside.
The entrepreneur, who is worth more than £70million and is a Tory donor, even brought along a livery-clad lackey to buff his £336,000 Bentley Mulsanne, which has a customised number plate ‘CH4RLE’.
He said the judge’s decision was a ‘no-brainer’, adding: ‘It took three minutes to prove Article 50 needs to be triggered by Parliament, not by the Government.’
Flamboyant plumbing tycoon Charlie Mullins – a dedicated Remainer and key backer of the legal challenge – cut a bizarre figure at the Royal Courts of Justice
In December Peter Wilding, director of British Influence and Adrian Yalland, a Conservative lobbyist who voted to leave, demanded a judicial review into whether leaving the EU means automatic withdrawal from the single market.
The British Influence think-tank, founded by the architect of New Labour and close ally of Tony Blair, wants a judicial review into whether leaving the EU means automatic withdrawal from the single market.
If it succeeds, it would mean MPs – many of whom are opposed to a ‘hard Brexit’ – would be given a say.
Leave supporters say remaining in the single market would mean businesses would still have to abide by stifling red tape, and Britain would have to sign up to continued freedom of movement of people.
Mr Yalland told the Daily Mail last month: ‘The purpose of the claim is not to "thwart" Brexit but to establish if the Government's position that we leave the single market "automatically" when we leave the EU is correct - because if we are correct, and the UK can stay in the single market after Breixt, this will prevent the EU using the single market as a "bargaining chip". This will shorten the negotiations, speed Brexit up and give the Government more options'.