AAI -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
AC-2024-CDF-000109
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
19 July 2024
Before:
His Honour Judge Lambert,
sitting as a Judge of the High Court
Between:
The King on the application of
AAI
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service and documents lodged by the Defendant
ORDER by His Honour Judge Lambert sitting as a the Judge of the High Court
- Pursuant to CPR r. 39.2(4) the Claimant is granted anonymity and is to be referred to as AAI”. The identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed outside these proceedings. There shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant. This application shall be known and listed only as “AAI v Secretary of State for the Home Department”
2. The Claimant’s application to reply to the Acknowledgement of Service dated 27 June 2024 is granted.
3. The Claimant’s application to file a second witness statement of the Claimant dated 4 July 2024 is granted.
4. The application by the Claimant to amend the detailed statement of facts and grounds is refused.
5. Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
6. The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount of costs that the Claimant shall pay shall be determined on an application by the Defendant under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Claimant to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.
Reasons
The claimant is an asylum seeker, revealing their identity, as such, potentially puts them in peril. There is no countervailing public interest in identifying them in these proceedings.
The claim, as originally formulated, was fundamentally flawed as demonstrated in the grounds of resistance filed by the Defendant. The application to amend must now specify an entirely different decision. Even if it is not strictly a later decision the same caution would seem to apply as with such an application. The Claimant seeks to pursue what is essentially a new claim.
If the claimant is permitted to pursue this new claim cloaked with the original claim, the matter will become convoluted and the overriding objective will not be best served. I am aware of the power to require amendment of other pleadings and bundles but a failure to start again, if so advised, will lead to matters being obscured and not elucidated.
R (Rathakrishnan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1406 (Admin) has been followed in a number of other decisions. It provides that:
“8. Where a challenge is brought to a fresh decision while proceedings are still pending, they ought to be brought by way of a fresh claim lodged in the usual way and fee paid, as is required, in the Administrative Court. This means that they can then be subject to the appropriate permission procedure. This includes a consideration of an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds, true arguability and any question of delay. It also enables the status of any existing proceedings challenging prior decisions to be resolved as opposed to the rolling and ramshackle process that otherwise ensues.”
I believe the same reasoning applies by analogy, perhaps even directly, to this case.
Regina (Hussain) v Secretary of State for Justice; Practice Note [2017] 1 WLR 761 demonstrates that:
If an application is made to amend to challenge a later decision the Court has a discretion to permit amendments and may make an assessment that the proper conduct of proceedings will best be promoted by refusing permission to amend and requiring a fresh claim to be brought.
And
The Court will be astute to check that a claimant is not seeking to avoid complying with any time limits by seeking to amend rather than commence a fresh claim.
As I revealed above I consider that the proper conduct of proceedings will best be promoted by refusing permission to amend and requiring a fresh claim to be brought. The Defendant should have an opportunity then to challenge promptness and have any detriment to public administration considered.
Permission was refused because the original grounds are unarguable given the true nature of the original decision as specified, correctly, by the Defendant.
Signed: PJL Lambert (Julian Lambert) sitting as a Judge of the High Court 19.07.24