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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000187

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

23 September 2025

The King
on the application of
BCY

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for:

An extension of time to serve his Form 86B;
Anonymity

Following consideration of the Claimant’s renewed application for anonymity and his application for an extension of time to serve his Form 86B Renewal Notice, and the supporting witness statement of Sean Dunlea of Duncan Lewis, solicitors

ORDER BY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. 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 BCY.

(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.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(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, Claimant’s served on each party.

  1. Extension of time: Pursuant to CPR 3.8 I extend time for the Claimant to file his Form 86B Renewal Notice to 24 June 2025, when the Claimant’s Form 86B was received by the Administrative Court’s Office.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and is the subject of a positive ‘reasonable grounds’ decision. The Claim is vulnerable by reason of his mental health condition and by reason of the risk of harm to himself that he presents. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice.

(2) Extension of time:
(a) Ritchie J refused the application for permission on 14 May 2025. The Claimant filed his Form 86B Renewal Notice on 24 June 2025.
(b) The relevant test for deciding whether to allow an application for relief such as this one is set out in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 392:

(i) How serious and significant is the failure?
(ii) Is there a good explanation for the failure?
(iii) Having considered all the circumstances, what do the interests of justice require?

(c) My starting point for the first limb is that the CPR are reasonable, and should be complied with. They are designed to ensure orderly litigation and to protect all parties from unfairness. The Claimant’s Form 86B was filed on 24 June 2025, just over four weeks out of time. CPR 54.12(4) requires a Renewal Notice to be filed with the Court within 7 days after service of the Order and reasons, so the delay in this case amounts to four times the time allowed under the CPR for an in-time application. It is therefore a moderately serious failure.
(d) I have read the witness statement of Mr Dunlea and I am persuaded that he has given a good explanation for the failure.
(e) Turning to the third and final limb, I note that the Defendant’s solicitors have taken a neutral position in relation to this application, neither consenting to it nor opposing it. While the delay in serving the Renewal Notice will involve some inconvenience, I do not expect it to result in any real prejudice to the Defendant. On the other hand, if relief is not extended to the Claimant, he loses his opportunity to renew his application for permission. In all the circumstances I consider that the interests of justice favour my granting the application.

Signed:
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Date: 23.09.2025