AXK -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000690
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
19 April 2024
Before:
Andrew Kinnier KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Between:
AXK
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
and
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
(Interested party)
Order
Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of service filed by the Defendant; the Defendant’s application (dated 20 March 2024) for a stay of the claim pending determination of The King (AK) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (AC-2023-LON-00316) and the Claimant’s reply (dated 27 March 2024) to that application
ORDER by Andrew Kinnier KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
Anonymity:
2. Anonymity is granted, under CPR 39.2(4), in the following terms:
2.1 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.
2.2 In any publication or broadcast relating to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be known by the letters “AXK”.
2.3 Pursuant to CPR 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 so that:
(a) The Claimant is referred to in those documents as “AXK”;
Form JR 1. Judicial Review. Permission Granted. Version September 2020
(b) The Claimant’s address has been deleted from those documents; and
(c) For the purposes of this claim (including any statement of case, judgment, order or other document), the Claimant shall be known as “AXK”.
2.4 Insofar as any statement of case, judgment, order or other documents to which anyone might have access under CPR 5.4A-D does not comply with para. 2.3 above, the Claimant’s solicitors have permission to file with the court 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’.
2.5 Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the court to vary or discharge this order providing that any such application is made on notice to the Claimant’s Solicitor and that 7 working days’ prior notice of the intention to make such an application is given. The court will affect service of the application.
Disclosure:
3. The Claimant’s application for disclosure is refused.
Stay:
4. The claim is stayed pending determination of the claim of The King (AK) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (AC-2023-LON-00316).
Observations
1. Anonymity: I am satisfied that the Claimant’s status as a victim of trafficking and the sensitive personal data that may be referred to in the litigation justify a departure from the principle of open justice on the terms set out above.
2. Disclosure: on the basis of the material before me, there is no reason to conclude that the Defendant will not discharge its duty to the court to provide a complete and accurate explanation of the facts relevant to the issues in the claim.
3. Stay: Given the similarity between the issues arising in this case and AK (which is due to be heard on 16 and 17 July 2024 with a time estimate of 1½ days), it is consistent with the overriding objective to stay the present claim pending determination of the latter. Given that case management directions (including the fixing of the time estimate) in AK were given by Sweeting J on 13 February 2024 and the hearing will be in July 2024, ‘linking’ this case to AK (as the Claimant proposed) at this stage may well disturb the time estimate and so the hearing date at a relatively late stage. In my judgment, it would be inconsistent with the overriding objective to do so.