BIL and BIG -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-004235

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

6 May 2025

Before:

Anneli Howard KC
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

(1) BIL
(2) BIG (by his Litigation Friend, BIL)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and interim relief/expedition

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants, and the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence (“SGD”)

Upon the Defendant’s application to amend its SGD which has been consented to by the Claimants

ORDER BY ANNELI HOWARD KC
(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 Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the First Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as BIL and the Second Claimant is to be referred to as BIG; references to the First Claimant’s daughter (as necessary) shall be to BIN.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or their wider family members or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants 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 Claimants;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, 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.

  1. Further Evidence and Pleadings

(a) The Claimants have permission to rely on the second witness statement of the First Claimant dated 20 February 2025 and written further submission of 20 February 2025.

(b) The Defendant has permission to make the amendments set out in the draft Amended Summary Grounds of Defence provided with the application.

(c) The Defendant to file and serve the final Amended Summary Grounds of Defence within 3 days of the sealing of this Order.

(d) The Claimants to be permitted to file and serve a response to the Amended Summary Grounds of Defence within 14 days of the date on which they are filed and served.

(e) The papers shall be placed before a judge for a decision on permission within 7 days of the Claimants’ reply.

  1. Mandatory injunction:

(a) Pending determination of permission or until further order, the Defendant shall, within 7 days of the sealing of this Order, provide the Claimants with suitable self-contained accommodation in the London Borough of Hackney within reasonable travelling distance of the Second Claimant’s school.

(b) This continuation of interim relief is to be reconsidered on the papers by a judge at the permission stage.

  1. Costs: Costs reserved.

THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SEE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2024, §17.7.4

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim relies on personal and sensitive medical information in which the Claimants have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Amended Directions: Due to intervening developments, the Defendant has sought to amend its SGD, which the Claimant has consented to. Permission is to be determined once the Claimant has responded to the amended SGD.

(3) Mandatory injunction:

(a) The First Claimant is a destitute Bangladeshi asylum seeker, a victim of prolonged domestic abuse who has separated from her husband and is sole carer to two children. The Second Claimant has special educational needs, displays behavioural issues and is being investigated for autism and is settled in primary school in Hackney.

(b) The Defendant has, for eight months been, accommodating the family in one hotel room under section 95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (‘IAA 1999’). The accommodation is unsuitable and the Defendant has accepted in August 2024 that the family should be dispersed to alternative accommodation in Hackney. It has made three offers of alternative accommodation which the Claimant has rejected, either on grounds that the space was not suitable for a family of three and/or that it was over 1 hour’s travelling distance from the Second Claimant’s school with multiple changes on public transport.

(c) I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that the harm to the Claimants is significant, given the Second Claimant’s SEN and the evidence that moving schools would be detrimental. I am aware of the shortage of accommodation in the area and the interests of other asylum seekers or other families requiring accommodation. However, the balance of convenience lies in the Claimants’ favour.

Signed: Anneli Howard KC

Date: 6 May 2025