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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001671

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

27 May 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Bennathan

Between:

The King
on the application of
BXH

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an order barring his removal and requiring his release from immigration detention:  

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Bennathan:

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 BXH

(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) Any  person  wishing  to  vary  or  discharge  this  Order  must  make  an application, served on each party. 

2. The Claimant’s application to prevent his removal is refused.

3. The Claimant’s application to order his release from immigration detention is refused.  

REASONS

  1. I grant anonymity as the matter raised by the Claimant, even if completely without foundation, might carry the risk of causing harm to him in Pakistan if it is widely known. I am satisfied that such risk amounts to a compelling reason to limit the publicity of this matter solely in respect of the Claimant’s identity and to order that no one should publicise his name or identifying details. 
  2. BXH has a long criminal record. His deportation to Pakistan has been opposed and litigated both  as  an  immigration  case  then  as  an  asylum  application.  Both  arguments,  and  a tangential claim against a police force, have been fully and exhaustively litigated. These applications represent a last-gasp attempt to frustrate the Defendant’s proper attempts to remove a foreign criminal from the UK.  
  3. The grounds argued on BXH’s behalf are manifestly inadequate to raise any point that has not already been considered and rejected by the Courts. I will deal with each in turn. 
  4. “The arrival of a fourth child”: This cannot make any difference to the judicial reasons previously given as to why BXH can be deported notwithstanding the fact he has children in the UK. At no stage has any judge suggested that it was the small number of children that was significant. 
  5. “The passage to time meaning at least one of BXH’s children would find it harder to relocate to Pakistan”: The passage of time has been caused by BXH’s endless unsuccessful litigation but in any event Judge Grimmitt in 2015 found that the children remaining in the UK, if that were the preferred option, would not be a bar to the deportation of their father on the facts of this case.              
  6. “The fact that  BXH’s wife now has her own right to remain in the UK”:  As  already mentioned, Judge Grimmitt found the family could either remain in the UK or return to Pakistan to be with BXH. This development merely makes clear that both options are available to BXH’s wife. 
  7. “BXH’s previous claim of being a “CHIS” was unsupported but he has now litigated to seek confirmation he was a CHIS”: He litigated and failed so there is no such evidence. In any event, the fact a criminal barters with the police by telling them about other criminals would not be an obvious basis for an immigration or asylum claim. 
  8. “Immigration rule 353A means that the Defendant cannot remove BXH once he has made further submissions until they have been considered, regardless of any lack of merit in them”: Having found the further submissions lack any merit at all, I further find: 
    (1) Rule 353A needs to be read in context and so as not to lead to an absurd consequence [see by analogy the decision of the Supreme Court in R (Robinson) V SSHD [2019] UKSC 11]. The literal reading of rule 353A contended for would mean that a series of regularly advanced  repetitious  and  hopeless  submissions  would  mean  a  person  due  to  be removed could always avoid that happening. In my view the rule must be read to apply to submissions that are at least conceivably arguable. 
    (2) If I am wrong about the meaning of rule 353A, judicial review and its interim orders are matters of the Court’s discretion and I decline to exercise them so as to oblige the Defendant to delay the removal to consider meritless submissions. 
  9. As I am firmly against any order delaying the removal, the application for release from immigration detention also falls away.  

Signed:          Mr Justice Bennathan      Dated: 27.05.2025