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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-00216

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

16 July 2025

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

Mr Justice Johnson


Between:

The King on the application of

BWT

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Anonymity Order

On an application by the claimant for an injunction to restrain removal, by way of interim relief

And upon it appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is (or may be) necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant, 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 of the Civil Procedure Rules (and it being necessary to grant non-disclosure to hold the ring whilst this emergency application is addressed)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the claimant

ORDER by Mr Justice Johnson

  1. The application is refused.
  2. The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as BWT.
  3. The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
  4. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher.
  5. Pursuant to s.11 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.
  6. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address Form JR-MPA. Judicial Review. Miscellaneous Paper Application. Version September 2020 and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant.
    (b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no nonparty may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  7. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each party.

    Reasons
    The claimant has not shown that there is a serious issue to be tried. It was for the decision maker to decide whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the claimant was a victim of trafficking. The decision
    sets out the correct test. The claimant has not identified any part of the decision that misstates the test or misapplies the test. The fact that if the claimant’s account were accepted, he would satisfy the test is not enough.
    Nor is the fact that there was some limited support from the first responder. There were many inconsistencies in the claimant’s account (including on basic and important features) and it was lacking in detail. The decision maker
    was entitled to conclude that the test was not met, and it is not arguable that the decision is flawed. The reason why the medical report is not referenced in the decision is because it post-dates the decision. The claimant’s application for reconsideration did not rely on the medical report. The defendant having correctly applied the policy and reached a rational conclusion, there is no arguable breach of article 4 ECHR.