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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001841

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

16 June 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

The King
on the application of
BOC

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

  1. ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mould:

Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 BOC.

(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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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. Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:

(a) The Defendant may file and serve any response to the application for interim relief and directions by 4pm on Friday 20 June 2025.

(b) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for a decision whether to grant interim relief within 7 days thereafter.

REASONS

Anonymity: Given that this claim involves evidence relating to care proceedings concerning the Claimant’s elderly and infirm mother, who (on the limited information before me) lacks capacity, I am satisfied that there are compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:

(1) On 11 March 2025 the Defendant granted the Claimant, a Zambian national, leave outside the Immigration Rules to stay in the United Kingdom until 10 March 2026. The Defendant stated that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of permission for the Claimant to stay in the UK outside the Rules, because of the ongoing legal proceedings in relation to her mother. The Claimant explained her mother’s circumstances and the care proceedings in relation to her mother in her application form. I understand that those proceedings are ongoing. Meanwhile the Claimant’s mother is terminally ill in hospital in Rotherham. The Claimant has not seen her since 9 May 2025.
(2) The Claimant is currently living in hostel accommodation in London and receives a £25 food voucher each week. She says that she is able to remain in her current accommodation until mid-August 2025. She is applying for work and has been offered a zero hours contract.
(3) The basis for the Claimant’s claim for judicial review is that the Defendant acted unlawfully in applying the “public funds condition” in granting her leave to remain in the UK. On 28 May 2025, her solicitors wrote a letter before claim to the Defendant outlining her proposed grounds of challenge. To date, no response has been received from the Defendant.
(4) The Claimant applies for interim relief in the form of a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to lift the public funds condition. Two reasons are given for urgency. The first is that the Claimant is at risk of street homelessness and destitution without recourse to public funds. The second is that without recourse to public funds, she is unable to support her terminally ill mother.
(5) In my view, the correct way forward on that application is to give directions which enable the Defendant swiftly to file written representations in response. On receipt of that response (if any), the application for an interim mandatory order will be placed before a judge or deputy judge shortly thereafter for determination.
(6) It is preferable to leave the question whether the claim should be expedited (and if so, the appropriate directions) to be considered by the judge who determines the interim application. The Defendant should make any representations which she wishes to make on those matters in her response under paragraph 2(a) of this order.

Signed: Mr Justice Mould
Dated: 16 June 2025