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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002007

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

20 June 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie

Between:

BOP

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

BEFORE the Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie, sitting in the immediates list at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London on 20.6.2025.

WITHIN the claim for judicial review dated 19.6.2025.

ON AN APPLICATION for urgent consideration and for anonymity and interim relief.

FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

AND UNDER the court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

AND UPON consideration of the Claimant’s Article 8 right to respect for private and family life and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

AND UPON IT APPEARING that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant as a vulnerable person.

AND PURSUANT to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; and rules 5.4C and 5.4D of the Civil Procedure Rules.

NOW IT IS ORDERED:

Identity and address
1) That the identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed.
2) That reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. The publication of the name and address of the Claimant is prohibited.

    Documents filed in future
    3) That the name of Claimant shall be described in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings in future and in any judgment or order in the proceedings and in any report of the proceedings by the press or otherwise as “BOP”.
    4) That the address of the Claimant shall be stated in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings as the address of the Claimant’s solicitors.

    Court files
    5) That in so far as necessary, any statement of case or other document disclosing the Claimant’s name or address already filed in the proceedings shall be replaced by a document describing such name or address in anonymised form as above.
    (6) That the original of any such document disclosing the name or address of the Claimant placed on the Court file (digital or paper) shall be marked “confidential: not to be opened without the permission of a Master or High Court Judge”.
    7) That a non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court’s paper or digital files (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) without the permission of a Master or District Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on 14 days notice to the Claimant’s solicitor or deputy and the Court will effect service.
    8) The Court’s paper and digital files are to be marked “subject to an Anonymity Order”.

    Variation
    9) That the Defendant may apply in writing under rule 23.10 to have this Order set aside or varied.
    10) That any non-party affected by this Order may apply on notice to all parties to have this Order set aside or varied.

    AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:

    1. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is adjourned to be relisted inter partes
      on the first open date after 14 days.
    2. No order for costs.

    NOTE:
    A. If a confidential document or schedule is to be e-filed, the “confidential” checkbox should be ticked and the reason for the confidentiality request must be specified in the “documents comments” section. If an order has been made, the date of the order should be given and a copy of the order attached using “add another” document.

    B. Pursuant to the Practice Guidance: “Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders” issued by the Master of the Rolls dated 16 April 2019 and CPR r.39.2 a copy of this Order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk).

    Reasons

    1. The Claimant (C) applies for judicial review of the decision of the Defendant (D) on
      25.3.2025 to detain him under immigration law powers pending deportation. The decision was made on the basis of persistent criminal offending and that deportation was conductive to the public good. C had no legal status in the UK.
    2. C also seeks urgent interim relief for release by 30.6.2025.
    3. The Grounds assert that on 12.5.2025 D decided to release C because detention could no longer be justified. The witness statement of Mr Mendelsohn informs the Court that initially tagging was suggested by C resisted due to his previously injured leg.
    4. In pre-action communications D has explained the delay as the need for checks with the probations service in relation to his address. C’s medical evidence asserts that his mental health is declining in detention. D assesses him at level 3 being an adult at risk. D asserts that the detention has been unlawful from the start and D has failed to provide disclosure.
    5. The facts discernible from D’s documents and the statement of facts and grounds include the following. C came to the UK in 2005 on a student visa. He overstayed and he has not status now. His criminal record in the UK is unimpressive.
      (1) 25.3.2025, guilty plea to handling stolen goods, going equipped for theft or a motor vehicle; attempted theft – 6 weeks imprisonment. C is subject to post imprisonment supervision by the probation services until March 2026.
      (2) 17.1.2023, Possession of cocaine, possession cannabis; fines.
      (3) 16.3.2010, warning for possession of Cannabis.
    6. The prison medical records noted that on 29.5.2025 C had no general health concerns. On 26.5.2025 he wanted a methadone prescription (20ml daily). On 23.5.2025 he is noted to have been sign posted with drug and alcohol problems which need to be managed in the community. On 20.5.2025 his heroine dependence is noted. On 16.5.2025 C is noted as saying his drug use had destroyed his life.
    7. The medical report (28.4.2025) obtained for C notes that he was sexually and physically abused when young in Mauritius. He fled the country. C reported that his mental health had deteriorated in the detention centre. He was diagnosed with anxiety and depression but not psychosis and he had no thoughts of self-harm. The doctor advised that continued detention would have a significant adverse effect on his mental health.
    8. In D’s PAP response dated 29.5.2025 they set out that D’s bail was granted subject to conditions and C’s release from detention is pending the checks currently being made by his Offender Manager on the proposed address in Essex, along with transferring case to new Probation area where the suitable address has been approved. On 9.6.2025 the probation service was still awaiting a reply from the local probation service.
    9. Balancing the factors arising from the above chronology I do not consider that interim relief is appropriate. There may well be a serious issue to be tried. However, C’s drug dependence is an important public safety issue and if he falls off the wagon against and commits more criminal offences to feed his drug addiction that would be bad for him and for the public. I consider that the probation service need to formulate the appropriate support structure for him and for his methadone treatment and any psychological treatment. This may involve tagging. That process is taking some time. Immediate release before that is in place might be dangerous. However, I will adjourn the application for reconsideration at an inter partes hearing.
    10. C also seeks anonymity. In the light of his drug problems and vulnerability I consider that to be appropriate at least in the short term.

    Signed: Mr Justice Ritchie
    Made: 20.6.2025