A -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/3994/2022

In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

4 November 2022

Before
Hugh Southey KC

Between:
The King on the application of A
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief and anonymity
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

Order by Hugh Southey KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

  1. The Defendant has until 4pm on 11 November 2022 to file summary grounds of resistance and a response to the application for interim relief. The matter shall then be put before a judge as soon as reasonably practicable.
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or her daughter or any details leading to their identification. If referred to, the Claimant shall only be referred to as ‘A’;
  3. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only by the letters ‘A’; and (b) any reference to her name or that of her daughter has been deleted from those documents.
  4. This matter is suitable for consideration by a Deputy High Court Judge.

Reasons

  1. This claim challenges an alleged failure by the Defendant to provide adequate accommodation to comply with duties under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1995.
  2. I have read the material submitted in support of the claim and there does seem to be a reasonable argument that the accommodation provided is unsuitable for the Claimant’s daughter. It also appears that the Defendant is relying on pressures on the system as a reason for failing to reaccommodate the Claimant and her daughter. I am far from certain that is a lawful justification for failing to take action.
  3. Despite the matters above, I am unwilling to order interim relief at this stage. The order sought will place significant demands on the Defendant and there may be good reason why it should not be made. I recognised that the Defendant has failed to engage substantively with the pre-action correspondence. However, this claim is not the most urgent. The Claimant and her daughter have accommodation that they have occupied for a number of months. I am willing to permit the Defendant to have 7 days to file an acknowledgment of service and a response to the application for interim relief. The matter should then be put before a judge as soon as practical.
  4. The Claimant seeks an anonymity order in view of the claim revealing sensitive personal information about her and her daughter. On the material before me, it appears that anonymity is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of the Claimant and her daughter. The Claimant and her daughter appear to be vulnerable and there are good reasons why their vulnerabilities should not be made public. This factor is particularly important in the context of the daughter who is a child. This order can be reviewed in light of either further material being served on the court or an application by the media.