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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-BHM-0000

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

6 February 2025

Before:

Her Honour Judge Carmel Wall sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
ASF

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by ASF for interim relief

UPON the Claimant’s application for anonymity order pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), s6 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and s37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981

AND UPON reading the Claimant’s N461, N463 Application for Urgent Consideration and interim relief, detailed Statement of Facts and Grounds and evidence in support

ORDER by Her Honour Judge Carmel Wall sitting as a Judge of the High Court

  1. The Defendant shall provide the Claimant with adequate proof of his lawful immigration status within 4 days of service of this Order, either electronically or in some other form that will be sufficient for the Claimant to open a bank account and obtain payment of social security benefits to which he has entitlement.
  2. Paragraph 1 of this Order has been made by the Court without service of the Claimant’s application and without hearing from the Defendant. Any party may apply to set aside or vary this Order within the time allowed for compliance and time is accordingly abridged for making such an application.
  3. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4) there shall be no publication in any newspaper or other media or other disclosure of any name, address, image or other information tending to identify the Claimant in relation to his involvement in these proceedings and the Claimant shall be referred to as ASF.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the Statement of Case, Judgment or Order from the Court records only if a Statement of Case, Judgment or Order has been anonymised such that:
    a. The Claimant is referred to in those documents as ASF.
    b. The address of the Claimant has been deleted from those documents.
  5. In so far as any Statement of Case, Judgment, Order or other documents to which anyone might have access pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A – D does not comply with paragraph 3 above, the Claimant’s Solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of any such document adjusted so that it does comply. Such copies are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant original; and the originals are then to be retained by the Court in a sealed envelope marked “not to be opened without the permission of a Judge or Master of the King’s Bench Division”.
  6. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge paragraphs 3 to 5 of this Order, providing that any such application is made on 7 days’ notice.
  7. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant has been granted a limited right to remain in the United Kingdom on the grounds he is entitled to humanitarian protection. Proof of his lawful immigration status was provided to him by the Defendant by means of an e-Visa. Since 20 December 2024 the Claimant has been unable to obtain access to this evidence. He notified the Defendant that the e-Visa contained errors in his personal information and although he has been told that the e-Visa has been corrected, he has been completely unable to access it.
  2. The consequence for the Claimant is extremely serious and justifies urgent relief. He is unable to open a bank account and cannot therefore obtain payment of social security benefit payments to which he is entitled. He is unable to discharge the rent due on his accommodation and risks eviction as the rent arrears increase. He is unable to pay for his everyday expenses.
  3. I am satisfied the Claimant has shown a strong prima facie case that depriving him of access to proof of his immigration status in a form that would enable him to access a bank account and social security benefits is unlawful.
  4. The balance of convenience weighs strongly in favour of granting the relief sought. There can be no arguable prejudice to the Defendant in providing evidence of a lawful status. In contrast, the prejudice to the claimant of refusing relief is that he will be severely compromised in managing his finances, subsistence and accommodation.
  5. Exceptionally I therefore grant the interim relief sought in advance of considering permission and without considering any response from the Defendant. I have though allowed the Defendant the opportunity to apply to set aside or vary the Order before it takes effect (if so advised).
  6. The grant of interim relief meets the urgency of the claim and so I have not abridged time with respect to any other procedural step.
  7. I am satisfied that the Claimant’s identity should be withheld and reporting restrictions imposed to the extent set out in the Order. The Claimant has been granted humanitarian protection. Private medical evidence is likely to feature in these proceedings. I am satisfied that his right to privacy outweighs the public interest in reporting his personal details in circumstances in which there is no restriction on the reporting of the context of this claim and any hearing will be held in public.