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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-002542

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

26 July 2024

Between:

The King on the application of
AYS (anonymity direction granted)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

UPON THE VERY URGENT consideration of the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief on Form N463 and the papers attached thereto:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:-

Anonymity

  1. Upon it appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant, pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules the Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as AYS.
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant and the Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as AYS.
  3. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been
    anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as AYS; and (b) that any reference to the names of the Claimant be deleted from those documents.
  4. Any person affected by paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Order may apply on notice to all parties and to the Court to have this Order set aside or varied.

Interim relief

  1. The Defendant shall continue to accommodate the Claimant at Lea Halls in Luton (LU1 2WJ) on an interim basis pending the determination of the application for permission for judicial review or sooner Order of the Court.
  2. The Application for permission to apply for judicial review and further interim relief is adjourned and will be listed for hearing in court on notice to the Defendant as soon as possible after Friday 9 August 2024 with a time
    estimate of 2 hours.
  3. The obligation to file an Acknowledgement of Service is hereby dispensed with.
  4. The Defendant do file and serve a Statement of its Grounds of Defence and such evidence as it wishes to rely upon at this stage by 4pm Thursday 1 August 2024.
  5. The parties are to provide a written estimate within 24 hours of service of this Order if they disagree with the estimate at 6 above.
  6. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument by 4pm Tuesday 6 August 2024.
  7. The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument no later than 12 noon Thursday 8 August 2024.
  8. Liberty to both parties to seek to revoke or vary this Order on 24 hours’ written notice by email to the Court and to the other side.
  9. Costs reserved.

Observations

  1. The Claimant is a 29-year-old Iranian asylum seeker who arrived in the UK on 8 June 2024 and is diagnosed with suspected Multiple Sclerosis. His symptoms include blurred vision and weakness / numbness in his legs, and
    are triggered by stress. He is currently under the care of a Consultant Neurologist (next appointment 15 August 2024) and a Consultant Ophthalmologist (next appointment 1 August 2024) at the Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. He is accommodated by the Defendant under s95 of the 1999 Act at Lea Halls accommodation in Luton (LU1 2WJ).
  2. The Claimant argues that the Defendant in mandating a move to Napier Barracks has failed to consider the Claimant’s medical evidence or given no reasons for moving him to Napier Barracks. They argue this is directly
    contrary to the Defendant’s Allocation of Accommodation Policy, which provides that people with disabilities and/or complex health conditions may not be suitable for Napier Barracks – and that medical evidence will be
    considered on a case by case basis.
  3. I accept in light of these asserted facts that the balance of convenience favours granting urgent interim relief before full consideration of the permission application – but a very short timetable is given to resolve that
    matter when this Interim Order may be reconsidered. I accept that it appears the prejudice to the Claimant in moving him today/tomorrow to Napier Barracks may risk irreparable harm.
  4. It appears the Defendant has issued the Claimant with a notice of transfer to Napier Barracks: on 4 July 2024, on 12 July 2024 (with a move date of 15 July 2024) and on 22 July 2024 (with a move date of 25 July 2024). On each occasion, the Claimant and his representatives have responded with medical evidence as to his MS and treatment. The matter is urgent