AH -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case Number: CO/712/2023
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
23 February 2023
In the matter of an application for judicial review
on the application of
Secretary Of State For The Home Department
On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration, interim relief and directions;
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE
- 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, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “AH”.
- The applications for permission and for interim relief shall be listed for an expedited hearing, to be listed as soon as reasonably possible from 23 March onwards. Time estimate: 2½ hours.
- The Defendant do file and serve an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, together with her response to the application for interim relief, within 14 days of the date of this order.
- The Claimant may, if so advised, file and serve a reply to any documents served by the Defendant under paragraph 3 above, within 7 days of the date of service.
- 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.
- Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
- Costs reserved.
I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
The Claimant, who is a failed asylum seeker from Morocco, has been detained in immigration detention since 19 December 2022. He has no means of support. He has significant mental and physical health issues and he was designated a level 2 adult at risk by the Defendant. After he was found to be unfit to fly, the Defendant granted him bail, but his request for accommodation has been refused on the grounds that there is no obstacle to the Claimant returning to his country of origin, and so his human rights were not breached.
As this is a detention case, involving a vulnerable adult, it needs to be expedited, and an oral hearing is required. I consider that the Claimant’s timetable is unrealistic, in light of the pressure of work on the Defendant and the Court.