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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/1271/2023

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

21 April 2023

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Clare Padley

Between:

The King on the application of
AM

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief and for permission to rely on a reply to the Defendant’s interim response and evidence.
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER by Deputy High Court Judge Clare Padley

  1. The Claimant’s application for an anonymity order is granted under CPR r. 39.2(4). 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. 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. In the case title, the Claimant’s name shall be replaced by the initials ‘AM’.
  2. The application for interim relief will be listed for a 30 minute hearing in court on the first available date after 26 April 2023.
  3. The Claimant has permission to rely on the additional submissions in reply dated 18 April 2023 served with his application of that date.
  4. The parties shall serve skeleton arguments not less than 2 days before the hearing.
  5. The parties are to provide a written estimate within 3 working days of service of this Order if they disagree with the estimate at 1 above.
  6. Save as provided for in this order, the standard directions in CPR Part 54 shall apply.
  7. Costs reserved
  8. Liberty to the parties to apply to discharge or vary this order on 48 hours’ notice during the working week.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is an asylum seeker from Pakistan. He is awaiting a decision on his asylum claim. He had been diagnosed with PTSD and depression and receives ongoing treatment from a specialist trauma centre in London. After a period of street homelessness, in November 2022 the Claimant applied for and was granted section 95 support and was placed in emergency accommodation in Bristol. Following a previous judicial review challenge, on 5 December 2022 the Defendant was ordered to provide the Claimant with (non-shared) accommodation in London so he could access his treatment. He moved into his current hotel in South Kensington, London on 7.12.22 where he lives in a single en-suite room.
  2. In his current claim, he states his current accommodation remains inadequate and he requires self-contained non-hotel accommodation. He states that his noisy surroundings of his current hotel room have triggered his PTSD and he relies on supporting evidence from his therapist.
  3. The Defendant has now filed an interim response, challenging the Claimant’s evidence, and relying on the limited nature of the section 95 duty and the lack of availability of suitable alternative housing. The Claimant now seeks permission to file submissions in reply which is not opposed by the Defendant.
  4. I am not prepared to accede to this application for a mandatory interim order without a hearing at which the court can hear up to date submissions from both sides, particularly given the nature of the section 95 duty, the vulnerability of the Claimant and the issue that has now been raised by the Defendant about the sufficiency of the Claimant’s medical evidence.
  5. Although there is a degree of urgency, the timetable outlined above allows both parties sufficient time to prepare for the hearing. I give permission to the Claimant to rely on his submissions in reply given the apparent change in position in the Defendant’s submissions.
  6. I have also now made an anonymity order in this case on the grounds that the Claimant has an ongoing asylum application and has mental health problems.