AB -v- Secretary of State for Defence and others (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-002090

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

29 July 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
AB

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

Secretary of State for the Home Department

and

(1) BB
(2) CB (a child, by their litigation friend AB)
(3) DB (a child, by their litigation friend AB)
(4) EB
(5) FB
(6) KM
(7) LM (a child, by their litigation friend FB)
(8) MM (a child, by their litigation friend FB)
(9) GB
(10) HB
(11) IB (a child, by their litigation friend GB)
(12) JB (a child, by their litigation friend GB)
(13) KB

(Interested parties)

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 Acknowledgment of service filed by the Defendants.

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, the Interested Parties, and their litigation friends, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In the proceedings, the names of the Claimant, the Interested Parties and their litigation friends shall be anonymised, as set out in the title to this order.
  2. The Claimant’s solicitors must file with the Court copies of all case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, the Interested Parties and their litigation friends, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, the Interested Parties and their litigation friends, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  4. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted in respect of the claim against the First and Second Defendants.
  5. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused in respect of the claim against the Third Defendant.
  6. The claim is to be expedited and interlocutory applications are to be treated as fit for vacation business, so as to ensure that the substantive hearing is not delayed.
  7. The hearing is to be listed for 1½ days as soon as possible in the Michaelmas Term. If the parties disagree with this time estimate, they must provide an alternative time estimate within 7 days of service of this order.
  8. The Claimant is granted permission to exceed the 5-page limit in his Reply.
  9. The Claimant is granted permission to rely upon the second witness statement of Ms Amy O’Shea, and the confidential annex and exhibit thereto. Pursuant to CPR 39.2, CPR 5.4C(4) and CPR 32.13, the second witness statement, annex and exhibit of Ms O’Shea are to be treated as confidential documents. They are not to be made available for inspection or supplied to third parties. Whenever the contents of the witness statement, annex and exhibit are referred to at the hearing, the Court shall sit in private.
  10. Venue: London.
  11. Costs in the case.

Case Management Directions

12. No later than 7 August 2024, the First and Second Defendants shall file and serve any application/s for a Closed Material Procedure under sections 6 and 8 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, CPR r.82.22 and CPR 82.13. The application is to be expedited by the Court, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the order.
13. The First and Second Defendants and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on, by 4 September 2024.
14. The Claimant may file and serve any Reply and any further evidence within 7 days of the date of service of the Detailed Grounds and/or evidence.
15. The Claimant must file and serve an agreed hearing bundle, not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing. The electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant must also lodge a hard-copy version of the hearing bundle at the Administrative Court Office, not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing.
16. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing.
17. The Defendants, and any Interested Party wishing to participate in the proceedings, must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 7 days before the date of the hearing.
18. The Claimant must file and serve an agreed authorities bundle, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing. The electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant must also lodge a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle at the Administrative Court Office, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing.

Observations

  1. The Claimant has identified arguable grounds for judicial review, and the claim merits urgent consideration at an expedited substantive hearing, with abridged time limits for preparatory steps. There has already been considerable delay in processing the applications. The tone and content of the Summary Grounds of Defence demonstrates a worrying lack of concern about the delay, and the safety of the Claimant and his family, and I agree with the criticisms made in the Reply at paragraphs 7 and 8. The Defendants are required to comply with the timetable set by the Court, including a prompt application for a Closed Material Procedure, if such an application is required.
  2. As the ARAP application has not yet been processed, there is no arguable claim against the Third Defendant at present, and accordingly I have refused permission.
  3. There is evidence that the Second Defendant has a role in processing the ARAP application, and may be contributing to the delay (see the Claimant’s Reply, paragraphs 3-5). Accordingly, permission has been granted in respect of the claim against the Second Defendant as well as the First Defendant.
  4. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant and his family are clearly at risk from the Taliban. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
  5. The extended Reply is relevant to the issues in the claim and assists the Court.
  6. The contents of the second witness statement of Ms O’Shea and its confidential annex and exhibit are relevant to the issues in the claim and therefore permission to rely on them it has been granted. As they disclose information about the circumstances of other ARAP applicants (with their consent), they are to be treated as highly confidential.