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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000266

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

26 January 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
AHS

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for (1) anonymity and (2) urgent interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant or any other matters which could lead to his identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “AHS” and any matters which could lead to the identification of the Claimant shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:
    a. a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;
    b. if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be made on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors;
    c. any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors and that 3 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.
  5. Pending the Court’s further consideration of the Claimant’s application for interim relief in accordance with the directions made below, the Defendant is not to disperse the Claimant from his existing accommodation, provided under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, at the Best Western Brook Hotel, Norwich.
  6. The Defendant shall file and serve any response to the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief, together with any supporting evidence, by 4:00pm on Wednesday 31 January 2024.
  7. The Claimant shall file and serve any reply to the Defendant’s response, together with any supporting evidence, by 4:00pm on Friday 2 February 2024.
  8. The Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief, together with all material filed and served in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 7 above, shall be placed before a judge of the Administrative Court on Monday 5 February 2024, by no later than midday. At that stage, the judge may finally determine the Claimant’s application on paper, or give directions for further submissions and/or an oral hearing, which may be listed on very short notice to the parties.
  9. Liberty to each party to apply to vary or discharge this order, on no fewer than two days’ written notice to the other.
  10. Any application made under paragraph 9 above is to be referred to a High Court Judge or Deputy High Court Judge for consideration within 24 hours of its being issued.
  11. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. This matter is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
  2. The Claimant is an asylum-seeker having a history of poor mental and physical health. He has sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Defendant’s decision of 15 January 2024, as a result of which he will no longer be provided with asylum support accommodation in the Norwich area, where he has been accommodated since October
  3. The grounds of review are that the Defendant’s decision is based upon a flawed recommendation and that the Defendant has failed to have regard to relevant considerations.
  4. The Claimant is due, today, to commence a programme of up to 16 trauma-focused CBT/EMDR therapy sessions with an NHS psychological therapist, having waited a considerable time for that referral. He has also been referred to the Audiology Department at Norfolk and Norwich NHS Hospital in relation to hearing difficulties and
    dizziness. Absent the interim relief which I have granted, the Claimant is to be dispersed, today, to accommodation in Smethwick, approximately 165 miles from Norwich.
  5. Whilst it will be appropriate for the court to consider the application for interim relief with the benefit of any response from the Defendant, I am satisfied that there is a real issue to be tried and that, in the circumstances currently known to me, the balance of convenience lies in the grant of the interim relief which I have ordered, for a short period, whereafter the application will be considered afresh, in accordance with the directions which I have given.
  6. At this stage, I consider it appropriate to grant the anonymity order sought, which relates to a purported refugee who is said to be at risk of persecution. The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision at paragraph 4(c) of my orders (which
    extends to the Defendant and would include representatives of the Press and other media, as interested parties). The order is subject to review, on application, or of the court’s own motion on notice to the parties.