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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003239

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

13 February 2026

Before:

SARAH CROWTHER KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
BOE

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an order withholding their identity and reporting restrictions order (“anonymity order”)

And upon the Claimant seeking permission to lodge amended grounds in the form of a draft dated 7 January 2026

And on an application by the Defendant for a stay of the claim pending the outcome of proceedings in R (ABW) v SSHD [2025] EWHC 3280 (“ABW”)

ORDER BY SARAH CROWTHER KC

  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 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 BOE.
    (iii) the Claimant’s children are to be referred to orally and in writing as (in order of birth, eldest first) DTN, ELD and FRL.
    (iv) the Claimant’s sister’s boyfriend is to be referred to orally and in writing as GGV.
    (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 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 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.
  2. Permission to Amend:
    The Claimant’s amended grounds dated 7 January 2026 be substituted for grounds lodged on 10 September 2025.
  3. Stay of Proceedings:
    (a) The claim be stayed until either:
    (i) If permission to appeal the decision in ABW is granted by Morris J, until the appeal is decided by the Court of Appeal.
    (ii) If permission to appeal the decision in ABW is refused by Morris J and if the Defendant applies for permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal, until either:
    1) Permission is granted by the Court of Appeal and the appeal is determined; or
    2) Permission to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal.
    (iii) If permission to appeal the decision in ABW is refused by Morris J and the time limited expires for the Defendant to apply for permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal.
    (b) Within 21 days of any application for permission to appeal against the decision in ABW being disposed of or, if permission to appeal is granted, disposal of any appeal to the Court of Appeal, the parties shall confirm their position by way of written submissions to the Court on future case management.
  4. Costs in the claim.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant asserts that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are a victim of trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and that by reasons of Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act section 2(1)(db) and section 1 they are entitled to anonymity. There is further evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of their family will increase the risk they face of serious harm by being associated with the serious allegations made by name. There is also evidence of mental health vulnerability which would be exacerbated by public association with the proceedings. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1. It is also necessary to make anonymity orders in respect of the Claimant’s three children and the Claimant’s sister’s boyfriend because identification of those individuals would pose a risk of identification of the Claimant.
  2. Amendment: The parties were agreed that there should be permission to amend the grounds. It is in the interests of justice that permission be given as there is no prejudice to the Defendant.
  3. Stay: There was a substantive hearing in the case of ABW on 20 May 2025 and judgment was handed down on 17 December 2025 by Morris J. That case addresses principles which are relevant to this case and are likely to have a substantial effect on the majority of the grounds in this claim. The proposed stay gives the Defendant opportunity to consider its position with regard to appeal in the ABW matter and/or for any appeal to be heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. It is proportionate and in the interests of justice to avoid duplication and potentially irreconcilable judgments at first instance that this matter be stayed on the proposed terms. There is no prejudice to the Claimant because they are unable to access public funds currently as they remain in custody following conviction of criminal offences. The main purpose of the litigation from the Claimant’s perspective is to establish a right to recourse to public funds. I have not given further directions because it seems to me that until the appeal is determined, the parties will not be in a position to know which, if any, parts of this claim need to be considered by the Court. I have directed them to make written submissions within 21 days of the disposal of any appeal.