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

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003598

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

4 November 2024

Before:

the Honourable Mr Justice Sweeting

Between:

The King
on the application of
AAT

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for Urgent Interim Relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Sweeting

  1. The Claimant shall be referred to in these proceedings as “AAT”, and pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant without the leave of the court. Any person has liberty on three days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge this order.

  2. The Defendant is not to disperse the Claimant from her current s. 95 accommodation until further order.

  3. The Defendant is to increase the Claimant’s asylum support to £49.19 per week (the standard rate) until further order.

  4. The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order at paragraph 1 above on 48 hours written notice to the Claimant.

  5. The Defendant is to file her Acknowledgement of Service by 4pm on 18 November.

  6. The Claimant is to file any Reply to the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of by 4pm on 25 November.

  7. The Court will determine the application for permission for judicial review and consider whether further interim relief is appropriate within 7 days thereafter.

  8. Costs reserved

    This is an order for an injunction. Breach of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 4 to vary or discharge, the orders at paragraphs 2 and 3 must be complied with unless or until they are varied or discharged.

    Reasons

    The balance of convenience favours the grant of interim relief. There is a serious issue to be tried as set out in the Statement of Facts and Grounds. The Claimant would suffer significant prejudice from dispersal outside
    London, potentially hindering their LNAT exam preparation and subsequent progression to an undergraduate law course. The prejudice to the Defendant can be mitigated by an earlier decision on permission and further directions, if required thereafter.
    The Claimants’ right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR should be regarded as paramount in this case. There is no compelling public interest, including the public interest in open justice, that outweighs the need to protect their
    identities.
    Practice Note [2006] 1 WLR 2461 establishes a presumption of anonymity for asylum seekers unless compelling reasons dictate otherwise. The Court of Appeal’s Practice Guidance, “Anonymisation of Parties to Asylum & Immigration cases (2022)” reinforces the longstanding practice of anonymizing asylum and immigration appeals to mitigate risks faced by claimants in their countries of origin.
    I consider that anonymity is justified for these reasons.

04 November 2024