Case No. SC/160/2018
In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
16 June 2020
Secretary of State for the Home Department
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 26 May 2020 by email on the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note)
On there having been no objection to the application by the Legal Representatives
ON considering the documents lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Practice Note (legal submissions, the witness statement of Natalia Garcia, dated 26 May 2020 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 B5.
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.The Secretary of State for the Home Department decided, in a decision dated 6 July 2018, to deprive B5 of his British citizenship under section 40 (2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, because it was conducive to the public good to do so on the basis he ‘travelled to Syria and aligned with an AQ-aligned group’. B5 has challenged this decision.
2. B5’s case in support of this application is that:
- a) there is a real risk of harm to B5 and his immediate family (which includes an infant son) inside Syria and/or in other third countries on the basis of the allegation against him and his location and activities in Syria. b)There is a real risk that B5 (and any potential witnesses) may feel impeded from providing material evidence given the potential risks to B5 and his immediate family;
c)If successful in the appeal, there is a real risk B5’s integration into the UK would be significantly compromised; and)There is a real risk of adverse/hostile attention towards B5’s family in the UK which includes two teenagers who are at college.
The Commission cannot decide at this stage whether B5’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.
By the Commission