AZ and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001668

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

17 May 2024

Before:

Mr Justice MacDonald

Between:

AZ
BZ
CZ

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimants for an expedited response from the Defendant and thereafter expedited consideration of the Claimants’ application for interim relief on the papers and for an anonymity order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by Claimants.

ORDER by the Honourable Mr/Mrs Justice

1. The application for an expedited response from the Defendant and thereafter expedited consideration of the Claimants’ application for interim relief on the papers is refused.

2. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identities of the Claimants shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court. The First Claimant shall be referred to as AZ, the Second Claimant shall be referred to as BZ, and the Third Claimant shall be referred to as CZ, in these proceedings.

3. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, 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 completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimants have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.

4. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge paragraphs 2 and 3 of this order must make an application to the court, served on each party.

Reasons

1. The Claimants issued a claim for judicial review on 16 May 2024 by way the urgent procedure. By Form N463 the Claimants make an application for urgent consideration, seeking an expedited response from the Defendant and thereafter expedited consideration of the Claimants’ application for interim relief on the papers.

2. In their Form N463, the Claimants rely on the following matters as reasons for urgency: (i) the fact that the First Claimant is heavily pregnant with a high risk pregnancy with an “associated risk of morbidity and mortality” for the Claimant and her unborn child, (ii) the fact that the present accommodation is harming the Claimants’ health, in particular by preventing access to adequate nutrition, (iii) the fact that the Claimants’ current accommodation is poorly ventilated, overcrowded, uncomfortable in temperature and lacking privacy, (iv) the fact that the First Claimant’s midwife has urged the Defendant to relocate the Claimants on “grounds of social and emotional factors”, and (v) the risk created by the proximity of a family member in the nearby area.

3. The evidence does not bear out the contention that the Claimants’ present accommodation presents a serious and immediate risk to the health of the First Claimant and her unborn child. Whilst she is clear that “social and emotional factors” justify, in her view, the relocation of the family to dispersal accommodation, there is no suggestion in the midwife’s evidence that absent relocation there is an increased risk to the pregnancy or to the First Claimant. The First and Second Claimants’ statements likewise does not contend that the difficult circumstances of the family’s current accommodation (which the First Claimant characterises as lack of space, kitchen smells, other guests smoking in their rooms and lack of ventilation) presents a serious and immediate risk to the health of her or her unborn child such as to justify an expedited determination of the application for interim relief. Indeed, the First Claimant has already entered the six week ‘protected period’ during which it may be preferable to remain in her current location and a move at this stage would break her established links with her obstetric team.

4. Whilst it is plain that there are difficulties with food, ventilation, overcrowding, temperature regulation and privacy at the Claimants’ accommodation resulting in significant levels of discomfort, the evidence in respect of those issues does not demonstrate that they present a serious and immediate risk to the health of the Claimants in the context of their respective medical conditions, such as to justify an expedited determination of the application for interim relief.

5. The same position pertains with respect to the alleged risk created by the proximity of a family member in the nearby area. The Claimant’s evidence is that there has been one sighting by the Second Claimant of a member of the First Claimant’s family. There is no evidence of attempts by that person to threaten the family or to otherwise contact them such as to demonstrate an serious and immediate risk of harm to the family.

6. Whilst the situation of the Claimants cannot but elicit sympathy, I am not satisfied that the facts of this case justify it taking precedence over other claims by way of an expedited response from the Defendant and thereafter expedited consideration of the Claimants’ application for interim relief on the papers. Absent cogent evidence that the present accommodation presents a serious and immediate risk to the health of the First Claimant and her unborn child, there is no reason why the Claimant’s substantive application for permission to seek judicial review, and for interim relief, cannot proceed in the normal way. The application for interim relief can be determined at the same time as the permission application on the papers.

7. With respect to the application for an anonymity order, an order for anonymity is a derogation from the principle of open justice. Any such derogation will be exceptional and based on necessity. In this case, an anonymity order is strictly necessary. The Claimants are asylum seekers and the Third Claimant is a minor. On the evidence currently available to the court, I am satisfied that the publication of the names of the Claimants may create risks for the Claimants in the country from which they have come and, potentially, in this jurisdiction. The interests of the Third Claimant, and the effect of her as a child of being identified further tend to support in this case the making of an anonymity order. In the circumstances and, having regard to the particular importance of the principle of open justice and the engaged, I am satisfied that the anonymity order granted is the minimum necessary derogation from the principle of open justice.