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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/2100/2023

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

21 June 2023

Before:

Jason Coppel KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King on the application of
BIM (By his litigation friend Madeleine Harris)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On the Claimant’s interim application
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s response by email dated 15 June 2023
ORDER by Jason Coppel KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

  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 their identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “BIM”.
  2. 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, within 7 days of this order.
  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.
  4. Pursuant to CPR 21.6, Madeleine Harris is appointed as the Claimant’s litigation friend.
  5. The Defendant shall file and serve within 21 days from the date of service of the Claim Form an Acknowledgment of Service, a response to the application for interim relief and any evidence in support of that response.
  6. The Claimant’s applications for permission and for interim relief shall be allocated to a Judge for consideration on the papers within 2 working days of the date of filing of the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service.

Reasons

  1. The Defendant has informed the Court that “the issue raised in the Claimant’s JR is being reviewed with the view of arranging single person occupancy while the SSHD arranges to re-assess the need to provide the Claimant with MSVCC safehouse accommodation”. Although no details have been provided of the steps being taken by the Defendant, I consider that it would – in light of that assurance and of the time which has already passed since the claim was issued – be disproportionate to grant the abridgement sought by the Claimant and to direct an oral hearing of the application for interim relief without the Court having considered the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service (which requires to be filed just over a week after this Order is made). The Defendant is expected, in her Acknowledgment of Service, to provide a full explanation of what has been done to re-assess the Claimant and to arrange alternative accommodation for him.
  2. A degree of expedition is appropriate however, and this will be achieved by securing urgent consideration on the papers of the application for interim relief.