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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001074

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

9 April 2025

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King on the application of
BLG

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant by Form N463

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

  1. Mandatory Injunction:
    (a) By 4pm on Friday 11 April 2025, the Defendant must move the Claimant to a single room in West London.
    (b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 1(a) above, any such application to be served on the Claimant’s representatives.

THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. 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

2. 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 BLG.
(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 Claimant’s representatives 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 may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraph 2 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Reasons

(1) I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice. The Claimant is an asylum seeker and there is evidence of serious mental health conditions. Anonymity and reporting restrictions can be revisited and reviewed as appropriate.
(2) I have carefully considered the facts that I do not have the benefit of any response from the Defendant; that the Defendant is in principle entitled to be heard; and that the Court would benefit from knowing the Defendant’s position. But I am not going to defer my consideration or direct later consideration by another Judge. The Claimant’s solicitors have told the Court that there has been no response to (a) an urgent email (4.4.25 at 17:48); or (b) an urgent letter before claim (7.4.25). They confirmed that Form N463 (8.4.25) would be served. They would be duty-bound to supply any response. On the face of it, there has been opportunity for the Defendant. I have included liberty to apply, which can be invoked if considered justified.
(3) I am not making findings of fact. But the key points, each of which is supported by evidence, are these. There are medical reasons, by reference to mental health conditions, why the Claimant should be in a single room not a shared room. The Claimant was sharing a room with two others. A decision by the Defendant was made and communicated (26.2.25), telling the Claimant that – on medical grounds – it had been decided that he would be moved to “a single room in West London”. That is an acknowledgment of a mental health-related need. The letter said the Claimant would be informed once Clearsprings had sourced suitable accommodation. Six weeks have passed. A communication from his solicitors (1.4.25) describes his mental health deterioration. On 4.4.25 the Claimant was told that he was being moved. But this was to a new shared room, and there would now be four others. The reason given was building works. The consequence of this news for the Claimant’s mental health was disastrous. It involved a suicide attempt and overnight hospitalisation. He remains in a shared room, but knows that a decision is being sought from the Court. The Defendant has missed several opportunities to respond decisively. It is necessary that the Claimant should have clarity that a move will take place, with a time-frame. I have said 4pm on Friday.
(4) I am satisfied that there is a strong prima facie case. In my judgment, the balance of justice strongly supports the grant of interim relief; but with liberty to apply. If the liberty to apply is invoked, careful consideration will need to be given to the delivery of information. There is good reason for communications to be with the Claimant’s solicitors, for onward communication by them with him.