IN THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
ANONYMITY ORDER: AZ
ON the Applicant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 and for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’)
ON the explanatory note (as defined at paragraph 28(v) of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)) having been served on 10.11.2021 by email on the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note)
ON considering the documents lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Practice Note (legal submissions, the witness statement of Anita Vasisht dated 10.11.2021 and the explanatory note)
AND ON the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Applicant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as AZ.
2. Nothing may be published which, directly, or indirectly, identifies him as an applicant in these proceedings before the Commission.
3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Applicant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Applicant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application whereupon this order will continue for the duration of the determination of that application.
1. AZ was refused naturalisation on 6th October 2021 on the grounds that he did not meet the good character requirement because of alleged membership of the PKK. AZ has applied to review this decision. AZ lives in London, and has close family members who live in Turkey.
2. AZ’s case in support of this application is that:
a) the proceedings are in their infancy and there is a prospect that further reasons to support this application will emerge;
b) there is a real risk of serious harm to AZ from members of the Turkish community in the UK;
c) there is a real risk to the physical safety of AZ’s family in Turkey;
d) there is a real risk of harm to family members in Turkey of potential witnesses AZ may wish to rely upon (which would also act as a bar to such witnesses being willing to participate in the review).
3. The Commission cannot decide at this stage whether AZ’s case in support of this application is well-founded. It must assume that it is, or might be, in the light of the risks which he describes. Those risks justify the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this order represents, and its interference with the Article 10 rights of the media and the public.