AVY -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003384
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
24 October 2024
Before:
The Hon. Mr Justice Mould
Between:
The King on the application of
AVY
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s solicitor’s emails to the court of 17 October, 22 October and 23 October 2024
ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mould:
Anonymity
(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as AVY.
(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
Mandatory injunction:
(a) By 4pm on Tuesday 5 November 2024, the Defendant must release the Claimant from immigration detention.
(b) By 4pm on Tuesday 5 November 2024 the Defendant must provide the Claimant with accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 into which the Claimant may be released.
(c) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above, any such application to be served on the Claimant.
THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(c) ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SEE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2024, §17.7.4
3. Costs reserved.
Reasons
Anonymity: I have read the Claimant’s submissions on anonymity and am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1 of this order.
Mandatory injunction: The Claimant is currently being held in immigration detention pending the determination of his claim for asylum. There is clear evidence that his mental health is deteriorating and he is vulnerable to self-harm and a suicide risk. On 8 October 2024 the Home Office wrote to inform him that his application of asylum support under section 95 of the IAA 1999 had been accepted. The Claimant is however a convicted sex offender under HMPPS supervision which justifies the Defendant in taking appropriate account of the risks both to the Claimant and to the public in providing dispersal accommodation that is suitable for the Claimant. The most recent information provided to the court (on 23 October 2024) is that accommodation has been identified and is undergoing suitability checks. The Defendant has informed the court that dispersal of the Claimant from immigration detention to s.95 accommodation is pencilled in to take place on 31 October 2024. Meanwhile the Claimant’s conditional grant of bail has been extended by the FTT for 28 days from 8 October 2024.
In these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case for the Claimant’s release from immigration detention. The issue is not whether he should be released, but the practical issue of finding dispersal accommodation which is suitable for him. An interim order for his release is justified, but in the circumstances it would be disproportionate to order that release in advance of 31 October 2024. In my view, my order should allow some additional days beyond that date to ensure that the practical issue is able to be resolved without detracting unduly from the underlying urgency of the situation.
Directions: The case management directions sought by the Claimant should be referred to the judge who determines the application for permission to apply for judicial review.