Case No: CO/1557/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
4 May 2022
Mr Justice Choudhury
The Queen on the application of BXR
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On an application by the Claimant for interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury
1.Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant. The Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as ‘BXR’.
2.The Defendant is to file and serve by 4 pm on Wednesday 11 May 2022 a written response to the Claimant’s application for interim relief.
3. The Claimant’s application to be placed before a Judge and decided on the papers as soon as possible thereafter.
4. Liberty to apply on 24 hours’ notice.
1. The Claimant is an asylum seeker entitled to anonymity. There are no reasons for not granting anonymity.
2. The Claimant and his family, including a newborn baby, are currently temporarily accommodated in one room in a budget hotel. The Claimant complains about the adequacy of the accommodation and has requested a move to self-contained accommodation suitable for two adults and two children within the Tower Hamlets area of London.
3. The Defendant, by a decision dated 2 March 2022, granted the Claimant’s request. Notwithstanding that decision, the Defendant appears not to have taken any substantive steps in the last couple of months to progress the move to more suitable accommodation.
4. In these circumstances, the Claimant would appear to have, on the face of it, reasonably strong grounds for his claim. However, it would not be appropriate to grant interim relief without hearing from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant has until 4 pm on 11 May 2022 to file a substantive written response. A holding response will not be considered compliant.
5. Thereafter the application for interim relief will be placed before a judge for determination on the papers. Given the Defendant’s acceptance that alternative accommodation is required, it is not necessary that there be an oral hearing.