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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000684

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 May 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King
on the application of
BNV
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence
(Defendant)

and

(1) BAN
(2) BNG
(3) BAH
(4) BAD
(5) BSS
(Interested Parties)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission for judicial review

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and Defendant

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

  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 and Interested Parties’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant and Interested Parties are to be referred to orally and in writing using the ciphers in the title to this Order.

(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 of the Interested Parties of any matter likely to lead to the identification of any of them 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 names, addresses and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Interested Parties;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or Interested Parties, 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. Extension of time: The Defendant’s application for an extension of time to 23 April 2025 for the Acknowledgement of Service is granted.

3. Deferral of permission: The Defendant’s application to defer permission until after an anticipated application for a closed material procedure (CMP) under the Justice and Security Act 2013 and CPR82 is refused.

4. Permission for judicial review: Permission for judicial review is granted.

5. Further directions: The parties have liberty to apply in writing on notice for further directions, and in doing so shall (a) confirm what steps were taken to agree the directions (b) indicate clearly whether a proposed direction is agreed.

REASONS

(1) This is an Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy case, where the Claimant and Interested Parties are said to be in hiding and in peril in Afghanistan. There is evidence that naming the Claimant or members of his family will increase the risk to life and limb. I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice. The “only ground of challenge” in the case (Defendant’s summary grounds of resistance (§13) is the lawfulness of the passage of time in dealing with the requested review (30.11.23) and representations (26.1.24), following the refusal (2.11.23) of the Claimant’s application (20.8.21). It is common ground that the governing principle is public law reasonableness.

(2) A sub-issue concerns the applicability of the ARAP criteria for expedition. The claim is that they do (Claimant’s judicial review grounds §55c). The Defendant’s application (3.4.25) for an extension of time for the SGR was justified on the specific basis that the Defendant was “undertaking a review … to establish whether he meets the criteria for a review decision to be expedited” which it was hoped to confirm “within the next week”. I grant the extension of time on that basis. I note, however, that the SGR filed 3 weeks later (23.4.25) are silent on that very point (Claimant’s reply §9). The response relies on generic context points (SGR §§22-25).

(3) I am unpersuaded to defer the permission decision. The reason given by the Defendant is to allow a CMP to be set up, to allow the Court to receive “sensitive material … which the SSD is required to put before the Court pursuant to the duty of candour” (SGR §26). Logically, that must be material tending to support the claim or tending to undermine the defence. I am satisfied that the claim crosses the modest threshold of arguability. One possibility may be that the Court could consider the lawfulness of the passage of time without closed candour material (since it is said either to be neutral or supportive of the claim); then if the claim could not succeed on open material, the step of a CMP could then be addressed. But that has not yet been addressed by the parties and a single fused process may be best.

(4) I have searched the Claimant’s papers in vain to find any other directions being sought of the permission judge. I have found none. I am not, in the circumstances, prepared to make unheralded directions of my own motion (eg. expedition and abridgement of time), to which the Defendant would have had no opportunity to respond. Nor has the Defendant provided any proposed directions regarding CMP. I have given liberty to apply. All of this is unfortunate because the efficient despatch of the Court’s work is promoted by the informed permission-stage judge dealing with case-management at the time of granting permission. As it stands, the parties will need to liaise. The default position is that the time-frames in the rules apply.

Signed: MR JUSTICE FORDHAM
Date: 9.5.25