BA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case number: AC-2024-LON-000624
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
26 February 2024
Before:
The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE
Between:
The King on the application of
BA
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Port Ref: MST/7970466)
Order
On the Claimant’s application for anonymity, urgent consideration, expedition, interim relief and for his claim to be linked to the other claims listed in Section 9.1 of the Claim Form;
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE
1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to his identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “BA”.
2. No later than 7 days after the date of service of this order, the Claimant’s solicitors shall file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above, without the leave of the Court.
4. The Defendant do file and serve an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, including a response to the application for interim relief, no later than 7 days after the date of valid service of the issued claim and supporting documents.
5. The application for this claim to be linked to the other claims listed in Section 9.1 of the Claim Form is to be considered by the allocated Senior Lawyer in the Administrative Court, under the guidance of the Lead Judge of the Administrative Court, as soon as reasonably possible.
6. The application for interim relief, expedition and other directions is to be considered by a Judge on the papers no later than 10 days after the filing of the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance.
7. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
8. Costs reserved.
Reasons
1. The Claimant, who is a Syrian national and asylum seeker, seeks to challenge the Defendant’s decision to accommodate him at the former air force base, RAF Wethersfield, since October 2023, pursuant to section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. He applies for interim relief transferring him to suitable single-occupancy asylum support accommodation.
2. The matter is urgent as it is contended that the airbase accommodation is unsuitable for him, because of his mental illness and suicidal ideation. Therefore I have abridged time for filing the Acknowledgment of Service, and set a timetable for urgent consideration, which takes into account the fact that the Defendant and the Court also have other urgent and meritorious cases to process.
3. This claim was issued shortly before 5 pm on the afternoon of Friday 23 February 2024. The Claimant did not wish to make an out of hours application, and so it was allocated to me, as the duty Judge for ‘Immediates’ and urgent applications, on Monday 26 February 2024.
4. The Claimant’s application for the Defendant to file a “response” by Wednesday 28 February 2024 is unrealistic and unhelpful. Despite the pre-action notification, it places unreasonable time pressure on the Defendant. In practice, orders made with such short notice result in a superficial and inadequate response, due to lack of time. The Summary Grounds of Defence is a far more useful document. This is an important and complex claim, and the Court requires a formal and fully reasoned response from the Defendant, which addresses the particular issues surrounding this Claimant, not just a generic response used in other claims.
5. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.