B6 -v Secretary of state for the Home Department (anonymity)

Anonymity Order

Case No. SC/161/2019



11 January 2021

Secretary of state for the Home Department

AND ON the Legal Representatives having been notified of the application on 22 October 2019 by email;
AND ON considering the documents served in support of this application in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures dated 29 November 2018;
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:

  1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as B6.
  2. Nothing may be published which, directly or indirectly, identifies B6 as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
  3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives.
  4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, an intention to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, or 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’s OPEN allegation against B6 is that B6 is an agent of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security. B6 denies this. The Appellant’s case is that it is difficult to rebut this allegation and media exposure will increase those difficulties. If B6’s identity were revealed, B6’s family would face difficult circumstances. If there were any risk of exposure, B6 would have to consider carefully whether to withdraw the appeal. If B6 were identified in these proceedings there would be “far-reaching adverse effects”.
  2. The Commission is not in a position to make findings of fact about the Appellant’s case for anonymity. The Commission notes that the Iranian authorities know about the appeal. Some of the evidence in support is vague, but the Commission bears in mind that B6 has difficulty in communicating openly and frankly with representatives.
  3. On balance the Commission considers that the encroachment made into the principle of open justice by this order, and its interference with the article 10 rights of the media and of the public is justified.