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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LDS-000106

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

1 September 2025

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge

Between:

The King
on the application for
BRF

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an interlocutory application by the Claimant for permission for an extension of time and anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, which include an application for anonymity, together with the Acknowledgment of Service form filed by the Defendant and the draft consent Order.

ORDER by Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge

Anonymity Directions

  1. The Claimant in this matter is entitled to anonymity until further order and there must be substituted for all purposes in this claim in place of references to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to “BRF”.
  2. A non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document from the court file other than this order (duly anonymised) without the permission of the Court. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant.
  3. A non-party may not obtain any copy statement of case or other document from the Court file unless it has been edited (anonymised) in accordance with this direction.
  4. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the publication or disclosure of the identity of the Claimant or of any material tending to identify the Claimant shall be prohibited.
  5. The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 1 September 2025 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
  6. The Defendant or any non-party affected by this anonymity order may on 7 days’ notice to set it aside or vary it.
  7. The costs of obtaining this order shall be costs in the case.
  8. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to judicialwebupdates@ejudiciary.uk

Other Directions

  1. No order is made on the Claimant’s application for permission to amend the Statement of Facts and Grounds (SFG). The Claimant shall file an application to amend his SFG within 7 days from the date of this Order. The application shall be compliant with the requirements of CPR PD54A Rule 54:15 – the application shall append a draft of the amended grounds with a statement explaining in full the requirement for amendment and the reasons for the delay.
  2. The Defendant, if so advised, shall file a response to the application to amend the SFG within 12 days of the date of this Order.
  3. Thereafter the matter shall be referred back to a Judge or Deputy Judge to make a decision on the application to amend the SFG and any consequential directions.

Reasons

  1. This judicial review claim relates to the lawfulness of an age assessment conducted on 2 March 2025. The Claimant’s case is that at all times he was a child, aged 16, and that he fled Sudan to escape persecution. There is a presumption in favour of anonymity in cases involving asylum seekers, see Practice Note (Court of Appeal: Asylum and Immigration Cases) [2006] 1 WLR 2461.
  2. Having considered the Article 8 rights of the Claimant and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, as well as the open justice principle, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice and protect the interests of the Claimant; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of his identity to justify interfering with his Article 8 rights.
  3. The claim is accompanied by an application for a revised timetable to enable the Claimant to file their amended SFG by 12 September 2025, with the Defendant then filing her Acknowledgment of Service form and Summary Grounds of Defence within 21 days of service of the amended SFG. The claim was issued on what was said to be a protective basis on 2 June 2025 which was 3 months after the date of the impugned decision. The Defendant has filed a short Acknowledgment of Service Form also said to be on a protective basis.
  4. There is reference to the reasons for the application being due to the late receipt of the pre-action protocol (PAP) response and difficulties in obtaining legal aid. However, the PAP response was provided on 3 June 2025 and other than a comment that there have been ‘cyber security issues’, there is no detailed explanation for such a long delay in obtaining legal aid.
  5. The Court cannot endorse such a long delay to the timetable when the impugned decision was made on 2 March 2025 and there is still no complete SFG before the Court. I have therefore directed the Claimant to file the draft amended SFG within 7 days of the date of this Order.

Signed: Karen Ridge

Dated: 1st September 2025