BCB -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001078

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

20 August 2025

Before:

Mr Justice Johnson

Between:

The King
on the application of
BCB

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Order

On the applications:

By the claimant for anonymity and for permission to amend the grounds of claim

And by the defendant for an extension of time within which to file an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the claimant and the defendant

ORDER by Mr Justice Johnson

Anonymity

  1. The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as BCB (“the cipher”).
  2. The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
  3. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher.
  4. Pursuant to s.11 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.
  5. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a
    redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant.
    (b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  6. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each party.

Amendment of grounds of claim

  1. The claimant has permission to amend his grounds of claim in the form attached to the claimant’s application notice dated 8 May 2025. The amended grounds must be filed with the court and served on the defendant by 4pm on 27 August 2025.

Acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of defence

  1. The defendant must file an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds of defence by 4pm on 12 September 2025.

Reply

  1. Any reply must be filed and service by 4pm on 19 September 2025.

Permission to claim judicial review

  1. The papers shall be placed before a judge as soon as possible on or after 22 September 2025 in order to consider the claimant’s application for permission to claim judicial review.

Reasons

The claimant is in hiding in Afghanistan and he has advanced a cogent case that his life would be at risk if his identity were not protected. It is therefore necessary to protect the claimant’s identity in order to protect his interests pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Events have moved on since the initial claim for judicial review because the defendant has made a fresh decision. There is a degree of urgency (and the reasons for delay between May and now are not clear to me). Although the court does not ordinarily entertain rolling applications for judicial review, I see no productive purpose in requiring a new claim to be issued.

I am not persuaded that the claim should be summarily dismissed because of the potential for the claimant to ask for a review. The claimant has already been the subject of two sequential adverse decisions. There have been accepted flaws in the initial decision-making process. There has been considerable delay. No timescale has been given within which a review decision would be made. Nor has any reason been given as to why the defendant could not initiate a review process of his own motion in the light of the further information that has now been provided. Nor is there anything which would apparently prevent the defendant from conducting a review in parallel with these proceedings. Nor is there (apparently) anything that would prevent the claimant from asking for a review without prejudice to these proceedings. The outcome of that review might render these proceedings academic, and there might then be an issue as to costs if the claimant unnecessarily delayed asking for the review and/or the defendant unnecessarily delayed initiating the review.

In any event, it is in the interests of justice that the claimant should be permitted to amend his claim so as to address what is now the live decision.

Signed: Mr Justice Johnson

Date: 20 August 2025