AJO -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case No: CO/3430/2022
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
22 September 2022
The Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE
The King on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and urgent consideration
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE
- The Claimant’s application for an anonymity order is granted under CPR r. 39.2(4) and/or the general case management powers in CPR r. 3.1(2). The Claimant in this action shall have anonymity until further order. No report or publication of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Claimant. In the case title, the Claimant’s name shall be replaced by the initials ‘AJO’.
- Pursuant to CPR r.5.4(c), a person not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the statement of case, judgment or order of the court records, only if the statement of case, judgment or order from the court has been anonymised.
- The Court file shall be clearly noted with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 22 September 2022 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.”
- Failure to comply with this anonymity order could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
- The Defendant shall file and serve a response to the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief, and any evidence relied on in support of the Defendant’s response, by no later than 4.00 pm on 28 September 2022.
- The Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief shall be referred to a judge for consideration on the papers on 30 September 2022 or as soon as practicable thereafter.
- The parties have liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order upon 2 working days’ written notice to the other party.
- Any other person has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the
anonymity order set out above on 3 days’ written notice to the parties.
- Costs in the case.
- The Claimant is an asylum seeker. She and her family have been accommodated by the Defendant in a single hotel room since March 2022. By this claim she challenges the Defendant’s provision of support to her and her family as unlawful on a series of grounds.
- The case will involve consideration of the health and welfare of her two young children (aged 2 and 8) and the family’s personal circumstances including their destitution, and living conditions which are said to lack dignity. It therefore engages the Claimant’s privacy rights under Article 8 and those of her two young children. Privacy is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant and her family and the integrity of her asylum claim.
- Having considered these Article 8 rights, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is strictly necessary in order to protect her interests; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of her identity to justify interfering with her Article 8 rights and those of her children.
- The claim alleges that the accommodation provided is inadequate to meet the family’s needs and that this is adversely impacting on the health of the Claimant and her children; that the Defendant is not providing the Claimant with sufficient financial support to meet her and her family’s essential needs; and that the situation is negatively impacting on the physical and emotional development of the children.
- Expedition of the claim is therefore appropriate, but the Claimant rightly acknowledges that the Defendant should have the opportunity to respond to the urgent application for interim relief before it is determined.
- The timetable above affords the Defendant a proportionate time to respond to the application and provides for prompt determination by a judge thereafter.