BVD -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)
Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002837
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
26 November 2025
Before:
Richard Clayton KC
Between:
The King on the application of
BVD
-v-
Secretary of State for Defence
and
BVD2
BVD3
BVD4
BVD5
BVD6
(Interested parties)
Order
Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds and the Claimant’s Reply
ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
- 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 and the names of the Interested Parties are 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 BVD and the Interested Parties are to be referred to orally and in writing as BVD2, BVD3, BVD4. BVD5 and BVD6
(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. - Appointment of litigation friend- an order is permitting the Claimant to act as a litigation friend to the Interested Parties
- Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
- Costs: No order as to costs.
- Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:
(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 1 hour including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.
(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
(iv) this Order;
(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);
(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.
(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing. - The application for expedition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Reasons
(1) Anonymity: The Claimant and the Interested Parties are Afghan and challenge the Defendant’s decision that they did not meet the eligibility criteria for relocation to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. There is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin and the Defendant does not dispute that such an order is appropriate There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Appointment of litigation friend The Claimant’s application is not opposed and is appropriate in the circumstances.
(3) Permission The Claimant has failed to show that he has realistically arguable grounds of success if permission were granted.
(a) The Claimant applied under the ARAP scheme on 24 August 2021, on the basis of various roles he undertook during his employment in the Afghan Government. He received a negative eligibility decision on 21 August 2023. He was found not to satisfy: (i) Categories 1 or 2 of the ARAP scheme, and (ii) Condition 1 of Category 4 of the ARAP Scheme due to not having been directly employed in Afghanistan by the UK government, or provided goods or services under contract to the UK government, or worked in Afghanistan alongside a UK government department, in partnership with or closely supporting it.
(b) The Claimant sought a review on 16 November 2023. He subsequently issued proceedings challenging the delay in issuing the review of his eligibility under ARAP . Chamberlain J granted an anonymity order to the Claimant and members of his family in those proceedings on 20 December 2024. The proceedings were then withdrawn pursuant to a consent order dated 22 January 2025
(c) The review decision maintained the refusal of the Claimant’s eligibility under ARAP (and, accordingly, that of his family members as IFMs) on 27 January 2025 on the basis that the Claimant did not meet the criteria in Condition 1 of Category 4 of ARAP
(d) The Defendant agreed to reconsider the decision and, by way of the Eligibility Review Decision dated 23 July 2025, maintained the decision that the Claimant was ineligible for ARAP.
(e) The sole ground of challenge advanced by the Claimant is that the Eligibility Review Decision fails to properly apply Condition 2 and/or is irrational which I find to be not realistically arguable for the following reasons:
(i) The report of Mr Foxley does not assist the Claimant. I accept the Defendant’s submission that the fact his report is based on evidence that differs from that of the Defendant is not indicative and/or probative of, any public law error.
(ii) Furthermore, the report describes the general context of aid and governance work in Afghanistan and asserts a general thematic alignment and geographic overlap with the Claimant’s work but does not provide any evidence of the applicant’s specific contributions to UK national security objectives.
(iii) Paragraphs 32.3 – 32.4 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds (SFA) effectively amount to a disagreement with the Defendant’s assessment that the Claimant’s contributions to the programmes on which he worked did not sufficiently contribute to the UK’s national security objectives.
(iv) In any case, the nature of UK funding of a programme does not of itself establish the contribution made to the UK national security objectives either by: (i) the programme, or (ii) the Claimant in the work he undertook for the programme.
(v) The Claimant at suggests that the Defendant is resiling from the “underlying purpose of the ARAP scheme” by addressing Condition 2 only in respect of the Claimant’s work on SPAD (see SFG, §32.6). That submission runs contrary to R (LND1) v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 27 where it was held that Condition 1 and 2 are to be considered separately. It follows that Condition 2 was to be considered in respect of SPAD.
(vi) The Claimant’s submission also runs counter to the ARAP Guidance, which provides that individuals are eligible under Category 4.
(vii) The Claimant’s submission that the SSD placed reliance on “unnamed sources within DARR and the FCDO rather than a full and careful consideration of all the evidence, including the wealth of evidence provided by and on behalf of the Claimant” (see SFG, §32.7 [CB/71]) is also without merit. It is inaccurate as a matter of fact.
(4) Costs I have made no order as to costs because neither the Acknowledgement of Service or the Defendant’s Summary Grounds identify the costs it occurred.