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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002257

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

27 February 2026

BEFORE;

ALISON MORGAN KC

BETWEEN:

THE KING on the application of
AXT

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymous and an application made by the Claimant and the Defendant to stay the proceedings

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER BY ALISON MORGAN KC (sitting as a DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE)

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or 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 ‘AXT’.
    (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 a redacted copy of any statement of case 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;
    (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.
  2. Application to stay the proceedings
    (a) The application to stay the proceedings is granted. It is agreed, by consent:
    (b) The claim should be stayed until the Defendant has made a decision on the Claimant’s entitlement to VTS following lifting of the pause by the Defendant or further order, whichever is the sooner.
    (c) The Claimant shall have permission to file replacement grounds for judicial review within 21 days of the Defendant making a decision on the Claimant’s entitlement to VTS following the lifting of the pause.
    (d) Liberty to apply.
    (e) Costs reserved

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant seeks an anonymity order in the proceedings. The application is not opposed by the Defendant. The Claimant was granted anonymity in a separate High Court challenge to a negative Conclusive Grounds decision (AC-2024 MAN-000447). Anonymity in these proceedings is required in order to avoid frustrating the effect of that order.. Further, in this claim, the Claimant has argued that he has been trafficked to the UK and within the UK. It is his case that he is the victim of an offence of trafficking in the UK under Modern Slavery Act 2015 section 2. If correct, this would entitle the Claimant to a statutory right to anonymity under sections 1 and 2(1)(d) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. The Claimant contends that it is necessary and proportionate to impose an anonymity order in order to preserve his right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR, given the factual circumstances underpinning the claim. In my judgment, there are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogation from the principle of open justice set out above.
(2) Adjournment to stay the proceedings: In these proceedings, the parties seek an order by consent to stay the proceedings. Changes to the Appendix relating to Victims of Human Trafficking or Slavery (VTS) and Part 9 of the Immigration Rules were introduced by the Defendant on 9 April 2025. The Claimant seeks to challenge the decision made by the Defendant to change the relevant rules and has filed this claim on a protective basis. However, at present, the Defendant has not yet made a particular decision on the Claimant’s entitlement to VTS. The parties agree that the appropriate course is for this claim to be stayed pending resolution of the Claimant’s position. The terms set out above reflect an agreed proposed order. In my judgment, a stay of these proceedings is appropriate to avoid wasting the Court’s time unnecessarily.