October 9, 2024

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003310

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

9 October 2024

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
ABA

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

and

Secretary of State for Justice
(The Probation Service)
(Interested party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration of his application for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mrs Justice Heather Williams DBE:

1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “ABA”.
(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

2. Mandatory injunction:

(a) By 6.00pm on Wednesday 9 October 2024 the Defendant must provide emergency accommodation to the Claimant under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Such provision is to continue until the Claimant is accommodated pursuant to sub-paragraph (d) below or further order.
(b) By no later than 3.00pm on Friday 11 October 2024 the Defendant shall provide to the Interested Party (Probation Service) details of the address at which she proposes to accommodate the Claimant under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“the bail address”).
(c) By no later than 4pm on Monday 14 October 2024, the Probation Service shall assess the suitability of the bail address, providing written reasons for the same to the Defendant and the Claimant’s solicitors.
(d) Within 24 hours of the confirmation of the suitability of the bail address the Defendant shall accommodate the Claimant at the bail address.
(e) The parties may apply to vary or discharge the terms of paragraphs 2(a) – (d) above, any such application to be served on each party.

THIS IS A [MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY] INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(e) ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SEE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2024, §17.7.4

3. Costs reserved

Reasons

1. The Claimant applied to judicially review his then ongoing immigration detention on the basis that it infringed the Hardial Singh principles and due to alleged unreasonable ongoing delay in the determination of his application for accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act.

2. The Claimant had been in immigration detention since 27 February 2024. He was granted bail by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum) on 29 May 2024, subject a condition that he be released to accommodation approved by the Probation Service.

3. On the material before me, there appears to have been substantial delay on the part of the Defendant in providing a bail address for the Probation Service to approve. Accordingly, on 2 October 2024 the First-tier Tribunal removed that condition. There also appears to have been substantial delay in the provision of accommodation pursuant to section 95 of the 1999 Act and a number of insubstantial reasons raised by the Defendant for the long running failure to do so.

4. In these circumstances, on 4 October 2024 the Claimant sought interim relief requiring the Defendant to provide Probation Service approved accommodation to an expedited timetable and an order providing that the Claimant was not to be released from detention in the interim (as he would be street homeless). Unfortunately the application was not filed correctly. An updated version was filed on 7 October 2024, by which time the Claimant had been released by the Defendant (although aware of the interim relief application) and he would have been street homeless but for the JCWI paying for hotel accommodation from an emergency fund. A compliant bundle was only filed with the Court today, 9 October 2024, when the interim relief application was then placed before me.

5. I am satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case in respect of the delay in the provision of section 95 accommodation. It is also clear that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting relief. Absent relief, the Claimant will be street homeless and he does not speak English and is vulnerable, having been acknowledged as an Adult at Risk and a victim of trafficking. He has mental health issues.

6. The Defendant has the power to provide accommodation in the short-term under section 98 of the 1999 Act. I have also directed that the steps set out under para 2(b) – (d) above are taken. I accept that the matter is pressing, but I have provided for a slightly longer timetable than that proposed by the Claimant to enable an appropriate address to be identified and checked. This will need to be done as a matter of priority. The Claimant will remain in section 98 provided accommodation in the interim. I decline to direct that the bail address accommodation is provided to the Claimant even in the absence of it being assessed as suitable (as the draft order proposes). However, I have provided for the parties to have liberty to apply should the need arise.

7. I grant the anonymity order sought. The Claimant is a recognised victim of trafficking and the claim concerns reference to his past experiences of abuse and mental health difficulties. In the circumstances I am satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to protect his moral integrity and private life protected by Article 8 ECHR. I accept that this outweighs relevant rights guaranteed by Article 10 ECHR. The orders I have made involve as little as possible interference with the principle of open justice.