May 1, 2025

BBG -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001175

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

29 April 2025

Before:

Richard Kimblin KC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
BBG

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for orders as to anonymity, interim relief, expedition and permission to rely on expert evidence.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

ORDER BY RICHARD KIMBLIN KC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as BBG.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Interim Relief/permission/expert evidence

(a) The Claimant’s application for interim relief and for permission shall be listed for hearing on or before Friday 23 May 2025 with a time estimate of 2 hours, to include time for an extempore judgment.

(b) The Claimant’s application for permission to rely upon expert evidence is adjourned to the interim relief/permission hearing.

(c) The parties shall file and exchange by 4pm on a date three days before the hearing:

(i) skeleton arguments of no more than 10 pages.

(ii) an agreed electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide), which the Claimant shall compile; and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(d) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (c), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

Costs

(a) Costs in the case.

REASONS

The Claimant is a Syrian national. His case is that he fled Syria at the outbreak of war and to escape violence from his father. He arrived in the UK in September 2023 and claimed asylum. He contends that he has not been provided with adequate accommodation: s95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It is said that the Defendant refused to relocate the Claimant to non-hotel accommodation by letter dated 10th March 2025. That letter does not appear in the claim bundle. The Defendant’s protocol reply suggests that the refusal letter is attached, but it is not [Claim bundle page 114, point (ix)]. Therefore the Court does not have sight of a copy of the decision which is the subject of the challenge.

The Claimant seeks orders as to anonymity, interim relief (expedited) and expert evidence.

The interim relief which is sought is to provide the Claimant with adequate, self-contained dispersal accommodation within a reasonable distance to his brother in Maidenhead within 7 days of the date of the order.

The Claimant seeks permission to rely on the expert report of Dr Aina (Forensic Psychiatry) dated 14 February 2025.

The Defendant is due to file her AoS on 8th May 2025 and has not filed a response to the application for interim relief.

(1) Anonymity:

The Claimant has an asylum claim. He does not wish to be identified via this claim. He fears for his own safety. In his witness statement he refers to fears from far-right protestors that have tried to harm asylum seekers accommodated in similar asylum hotels as well as not wishing to be identified by his room-mate or others in the hotel as he is critical of them in this claim.

In those circumstances it is both necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and to protect the interests of the Claimant to make the order sought.

(2) Interim relief/injunction:

In my judgment, it is appropriate to list the application for interim relief for hearing after filing of the AoS and a proper opportunity for the parties to file focussed skeleton arguments to assist the judge at that hearing. It is evidently premature to determine the issues which it is necessary to address in deciding interim relief without the Defendant’s response. I have made directions accordingly. I accept that there should be expedition of the hearing. I do not accept a 7 day period is a relevant measure in this case.

The Claimant relies on the review of the authorities conducted by Johnson J in R (Humnyntkyi) 2020 EWHC 1912 reported at [2021] 1 WLR 320 at [179]. The case is distinguishable on the basis that it was dealing with those who were street homeless. In this case, the Claimant has accommodation but contends that it is not adequate. In my judgment, having regard to the Claimant’s evidence, including the expert evidence de bene esse, it is appropriate to order a hearing of the application for interim relief on or before Friday 23rd May 2025.

(3) Expert Evidence:

The Claimant was assessed by Dr Olalekan Aina, Specialty Registrar in Forensic Psychiatry whose report, dated 14 February 2025, was provided to the Defendant on 18 February 2025. Dr Aina’s report concluded that the Claimant has a diagnosis of adjustment disorder, that he would benefit from psychological support in the form of counselling or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, and that the current hotel accommodation is having a deteriorating effect on his condition and that remaining there will hinder any recovery.

When the case is listed for hearing of the interim relief application, the Court will have the Secretary of State’s response to the Grounds and submissions on the need or otherwise for expert evidence. It is therefore premature to decide whether permission should be given to rely on Dr Aina’s report. That decision is better made in the light of conclusions on permission and interim relief. I do not refuse permission to rely on such expert evidence, but leave that application until the hearing of the interim relief application.

Signed: RICHARD KIMBLIN KC
Date: 29th April 2025