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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-003573

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

4 December 2023


The Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE


The King on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department


Secretary of State for Justice
(Interested party)


On consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant including applications for urgent consideration and interim relief

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE

  1. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is urgent.
  2. By no later than 4 pm on 6 December 2023 the Defendant shall file and serve a detailed response to the application.
  3. The application shall be heard at a hearing on notice to both parties on 8 December 2023 with a time estimate of 2 hours.
  4. Costs reserved.


  1. Urgent consideration of the application for interim relief is appropriate for the following reasons:
    (a) The Claimant is a vulnerable individual recognised by the Defendant as being an adult at risk at “Level 3” within the Defendant’s ‘Adults at Risk in Detention’ policy.
    (b) The Claimant has been detained by the Defendant since 2 July 2023, notwithstanding a grant of conditional bail by the First-tier Tribunal on 11 October 2023, over 50 days ago. That bail was conditional on residence at an address provided by the Defendant and approval by the Probation Service. To date the Defendant has failed to provide a release address.
    (c) The Claimant has advanced persuasive arguments, in summary, to the effect that the Defendant’s failure to provide a release address is unlawful and that his detention is unlawful and in breach of his rights under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the ECHR, notwithstanding the grant of bail.
    (d) On 31 July 2023 an IRC doctor advised that ongoing detention would have an adverse effect on the Claimant’s mental health, in the form of a worsening of his pre-existing symptoms of anxiety and depression. This has been confirmed by evidence from an independent doctor from the Medical Justice charity dated 18 and 26 October 2023 and 8 November 2023. This doctor has opined that detention was adversely impacting the Claimant, who had expressed suicidal ideation, had a past history of suicidal attempts and had multiple risk factors for suicide. The Claimant’s history of self-harm is borne out by his police and prison medical records from 2021-2023. The Claimant was placed in segregation on 3/4 November 2023 which has added to the independent doctor’s concerns.
    (e) The Claimant is also currently refusing to take medication to control his epilepsy, resulting in seizures and a risk to his life.
    (f) The Claimant’s representatives have put the Defendant on notice of the anticipated claim through the pre-action process on 17, 24 and 29 November 2023. The Claimant’s representatives have also liaised directly with IRC healthcare and the Probation Services. No substantive responses have been received.
  2. The issues set out above render the application for interim relief urgent but not, in my judgment, so urgent that it should be determined without the Defendant providing a response.
  3. The application for interim relief should be considered at an on notice hearing. This has been listed as soon as possible and within the timescale requested by the Claimant if relief was not granted on the papers. Provision has been made for the Defendant to set out his position as a matter of urgency, in order to narrow the issues or potentially resolve the claim.

On consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant including an application for anonymity
ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE

  1. The Claimant in this matter is entitled to anonymity until further order and there must be substituted for all purposes in this claim in place of references to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to “AXA”.
  2. A non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document from the court file other than this order (duly anonymised) without the permission of the Court. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant.
  3. A non-party may not obtain any copy statement of case or other document from the Court file unless it has been edited (anonymised) in accordance with this direction.
  4. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the publication or disclosure of the identity of the Claimant or of any material tending to identify the Claimant shall be prohibited.
  5. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 4 December 2023 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.”
  6. The Defendant or any non-party affected by this anonymity order may on 7 days’ notice to set it aside or vary it.
  7. The costs of obtaining this order shall be costs in the case.
  8. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice ( For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at


  1. The Claimant challenges the Defendant’s detention of him under immigration powers since around 2 July 2023 and her continuing failure to comply with her duty to accommodate him pursuant to sections 4 and/or 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1995 and/or Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016.
  2. There is a presumption in favour of anonymity in cases involving asylum seekers, see Practice Note (Court of Appeal: Asylum and Immigration Cases) [2006] 1 WLR 2461. The Claimant’s case also raises allegations of modern slavery/forced labour and of breaches of his rights under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the ECHR.
  3. Having considered the Article 8 rights of the Claimant and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, as well as the open justice principle, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice and protect the interests of the Claimant; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of his identity to justify interfering with his Article 8 rights.