Claim No: SN/95/2021
In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
27 October 2021
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
On the Appellant’s being granted an Anonymity Order in his earlier proceedings (SN/96/2020) pursuant to Rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Procedure Rules 2003, and for an Order restraining publication pursuant to Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (the Application).
On the explanatory note (as defined at paragraph 28(v) of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)) having been served on 21 January 2021 by email on the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note)
And on the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this Order:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
- The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of these proceedings in the commission and to be known in these proceedings as “ASA”.
- Nothing may be published which directly or indirectly identifies him as an Appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
- There be liberty to apply on 48 hours written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the legal representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
- This Order continues until the Open judgment be handed down in these proceedings or further Order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the Open judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the open judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for Directions for the determination of any such application where upon this Order will continue for the duration of the determination of that application
ASA applied for naturalisation as a British citizen which has been refused by the Secretary of State and ASA has appealed this decision to SIAC. No reasons were given by the Secretary of State other than ASA had not satisfied the good character requirement.
ASA’s case in support of his application is that:
a. the proceedings are in their infancy and there is a prospect that further reasons to support this application will emerge;
b. there is a real risk:
- ASA’s reputation and that of his family would be damaged.
- ASA and ASA’s family may be placed at risk of harm in Turkey; and
- ASA’s potential witnesses may be dissuaded from providing evidence.
The Commission cannot decide at this stage whether ASA’s case in support of this application is well-founded. It must assume that it is, or might be, in the light of the risks which he describes. Those risks justify the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this order represents, and its interference with the Article 10 rights of the media and the public.