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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-000606

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

23 February 2024


The Honourable Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE


The King on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department


On an application by the Claimant for interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s email of 23 February 2024

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE

1. The Claimant’s application for interim relief will be considered at a hearing to be listed no later than 28 February 2024, time estimate 1.5 hours.

2. The Defendant is to file and serve a response to the Claimant’s application and any evidence upon which he proposes to rely in response to that application no later than 24 hours before the interim relief hearing referred to in paragraph 1 above.

3. There shall be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings, in place of reference to the Claimant by name, whether orally or in writing, reference to the letters “AAA”.

4. No report of any proceedings shall identify the Claimant or his address, nor publish any details which may lead to his identification or to him being located.

5. Pursuant to CPR 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 state of case, judgment or order had been anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant have been deleted or otherwise redacted from these documents.

6. The directions at paragraphs 3 – 5 above may be reviewed by the Court on application by any person who wishes to set aside or vary the order for anonymity. Any such request must be made in writing on not less than 7 days notice to the parties and stating the reasons in support.

7. Costs reserved.


1. By these proceedings the Claimant challenges the Defendant’s decision to detain him and his continued detention. He seeks interim relief in the form of an order that the Defendant release him to accommodation provided pursuant to section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 within the Borough of Newham or as close as is reasonably possible thereto. The Claimant’s case is that the Defendant has no power to detain him in immigration detention as he cannot be removed in light of the First-tier Tribunal’s 21 November 2023 decision. He contends that the matter is urgent given that he suffers from serious mental illness, which is being adversely impacted by his continued detention. The Claimant sought an urgent hearing of his application for interim relief to be listed by 27 February 2024.

2. Considering the papers on 22 February 2024, Fordham J directed that the Defendant be given an opportunity to make observations by noon on 23 February 2024. The Defendant’s brief response sent on 23 February 2024, indicates that the Claimant is assessed as Adult at Risk level 1 and that the Defendant intends for the Claimant to remain in detention in order to enforce his removal.

3. Accordingly, the parties appear to have diametrically opposed positions as to the legality of the Claimant’s detention and the power to remove him, albeit the Defendant’s position has not been articulated in any detail at this stage.

4. In the circumstances I consider that the question of whether the interim relief sought should be granted is best considered at a hearing, to be listed as a matter of urgency. However, I have allowed for one additional day for the hearing beyond the Claimant’s suggested deadline of 27 February 2024, in order to enable the Defendant to provide a detailed response no later than 24 hours in advance of the hearing. I consider that this is strikes a fair balance in respect of the competing considerations and it intended to allow sufficient time for the Court to be fully assisted by the parties at the listed hearing.

5. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant anonymity to the Claimant in light of the findings of the First-tier Tribunal. I am satisfied that in the circumstances that these matters justify the limited incursion on open justice considerations.