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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000685

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

30 October 2024

Before:

Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
AI

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

UPON an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order

AND UPON

  1. Consideration of the Article 8 rights of [the Claimant for respect for private and family life, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression.
  2. It appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of [the Claimant/another person] and that there is no sufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure.
  3. The Defendant indicating its neutrality to the making of the order and there being no representations from the press or any other interested party.

AND PURSUANT to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR rules 5.4C, 5.4D and 39.2(4)

WHEREAS for the purposes of this order:

  1. ‘Publication’ includes any speech, writing, broadcast, or other communication in whatever form (including internet and social media), which is addressed to the public at large or any section of the public.
  2. Publication for the purpose of this Order includes any further publication (as defined in subparagraph (i) above) from the date of this Order, even if such information has derived from a previous stage or stages of these proceedings.

AND UPON the application of the parties for a consent order

AND UPON the Claimant issuing a claim for judicial review against the Defendant on 27 February 2024

AND UPON the Defendant publishing a Statement of Changes to the Immigration Rules on 14 March 2024 (the ‘Statement of Changes’) that amended the policy that was the subject matter of the claim

AND UPON the proceedings being stayed to allow the parties to correspond about the relevance of the Statement of Changes for the claim

AND UPON the parties agreeing that the withdrawal of the judicial review claim does not preclude the Claimant (if so advised) from bringing a Part 7 claim against the Defendant for just satisfaction / damages for unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14 ECHR, taken in conjunction with Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol 1 ECHR, including in respect of the same alleged breaches raised in this judicial review claim, though nothing in this recital is to be taken as guaranteeing the success or otherwise of that claim

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

ORDER by Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

1. The identity of the Claimant as a party to these proceedings is confidential and shall not be published.
a. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings or other publication the name or address of the Claimant or other immediate family members, or any details (including other names, addresses, or a specific combination of facts) that could lead to the identification of the Claimant in these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as set out at paragraph 3 of this Order in any order or report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation thereto:
b. Pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4C and 5.4D:
i. A person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with subparagraphs 3(i) to (iii) above.
ii. If a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies (pursuant to CPR r.5.4C(1B) or (2)) for permission to inspect or obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitor, trustee or deputy.
iii. The Claimant’s solicitor shall file with the Court an electronic (PDF) bundle of the statements of case that has been anonymised in accordance with paragraph 3 above by 21 days from date of the order, and re-filed in the event that any statement of case is amended, within 21 days of such amendment being approved.
iv. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on the date of this Order and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
v. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, provided that any such application is made on 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitor, trustee or deputy.
vi. Pursuant to the ‘Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders’ issued by the Master of the Rolls dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this Order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk

BY CONSENT, IT IS ORDERED THAT

2. The Claimant has leave to withdraw the above numbered claim for judicial review

3. The issue of costs is to be decided by the Court by way of written submissions
a. The issue of costs is to be decided by the Court by way of written submissions
b. The Claimant shall file and serve her written submissions seeking her costs, limited to 2 pages of A4, within 14 days of this order being sealed by the Court;
c. The Defendant shall file and serve his written submissions in response, limited to 2 pages of A4, within 14 days of service of the Claimant’s written submissions;
d. The Claimant shall file and serve further written submissions in reply (if so advised), limited to 2 pages of A4, within 7 days of service of the Defendant’s written submissions; and,
e. The Court shall decide the question of costs on the papers as soon as practicable thereafter.

4. The issue of costs is to be decided by the Court by way of written submission

5. There shall be a detailed Legal Aid Agency assessment of the Claimant’s publicly funded costs.