AA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001235
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
16 April 2024
Before:
The Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon
Between:
The King on the application of
AA
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon
1. The Defendant must no later than 4pm on 30 April 2024 provide the Claimant with suitable accommodation
2. The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order at paragraph 1 above on two days written notice to the Claimant.
3. Any application made under paragraph 2 is to be referred to a High Court Judge for consideration within one day after issue.
4. The Claimant shall be anonymised and known throughout these proceedings as ‘AA’ until further order.
5. Costs reserved.
This is a mandatory injunction. Breach of paragraph 1 of this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 2 to vary or discharge, the order at paragraph 1 must be complied with unless or until such an order is made.
Reasons
1. The Claimant, who shall be referred to as “AA”, is an Iranian national. He has been detained under immigration powers since 16 October 2023. On 4 December, the Secretary of State agreed that AA should be released from detention subject to suitable accommodation being made available. On 21 February 2024, the Secretary of State accepted that he was required to provide AA with such accommodation. It appears that arrangements have been made with a contractor, Serco, for accommodation to be made available to AA but, for unknown reasons, the Claimant has not been released from detention and taken to the new accommodation on two occasions: 8 March and 20 March 2024. The Claimant has sought to find out what happened on those occasions, and the Secretary of State has been written to several times, but no response has been forthcoming.
2. The Secretary of State accepts that there is no realistic prospect of removing AA from the United Kingdom within a reasonable period of time. The Claimant’s human rights/asylum submissions have not been determined, and the Claimant does not have an Emergency Travel Document.
3. The Claimant has made out a strongly arguable case for interim relief. The Claimant is owed a duty to be provided with suitable accommodation by the Secretary of State. No explanation has been provided as to why he was not released and provided with accommodation on 8 and 20 March 2024. The balance of convenience clearly favours the Claimant. He will suffer prejudice if he has to remain much longer in immigration detention. The Claimant is a Level 2 Adult at Risk. There is evidence to suggest that he is experiencing suicidal ideation. This outweighs any prejudice to the Secretary of State if accommodation has to be provided to the Claimant, and to the public interest more generally given that release from detention has been approved.
4. As I do not know the reason why accommodation was not provided on 8 and 20 March 2024, and given the difficulties that the Court is generally aware of about locating suitable accommodation for those released from immigration detention, I consider that the Secretary of State should have a period of 14 days within which to release the Claimant to suitable accommodation. Of course, if release can happen sooner, then that would be preferred. I appreciate that the Claimant has vulnerabilities, but the evidence does not suggest that he needs to be released immediately.
5. If the Secretary of State has a good reason why this Order should not have been made, or why a variation is required for practical reasons, then he has liberty to apply.
6. I agree that the Claimant should be anonymised in these proceedings. The Claimant appears to be a vulnerable individual, with mental health issues. He may also have been the victim of torture. The Claimant’s right to respect to his private life outweighs any public interest in knowing his identity.