Skip to main content

C1 -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

CASE NO: SC/164/2019

IN THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION

11 December 2019

 

Before:

The Commission

Between:

C1

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

 


ORDER

ON the Applicant having been granted anonymity on an interim basis by an Order made on of 9 January 2019

ON the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Issues having come into force on 28 June 2019

AND ON the Applicant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 and for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’)

ON the Legal Representatives having been notified of the application on 11th September 2019 by email, and an amended explanatory note having been served on them on 1 November 2019

ON the Legal Representatives having made no objection to the application

ON considering the documents (‘the documents’) lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (the Practice Note’):

  1. a) legal submissions;
  2. b) witness statement of Chris Mckendry
  3. c) amended explanatory note

AND ON the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. Pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Procedure Rules 2003 the appellant/applicant is to be anonymised, and referred to only as “C1” in these proceedings
  2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 there shall be no publication by any person of any matter which, directly, or indirectly, could lead to the identification of C1 as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission
  3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note)
  4. The Applicant shall keep the Commission, Secretary of State and Legal Representatives informed of any developments which are relevant to the continuation of the anonymity order
  5. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application.

Reasons

  1. The Applicant came to the United Kingdom 2002. He granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom (‘ILR’) in 2017. In 2018 he applied successfully for a travel document, and later, for visa to Iran. The visa was granted for a month.
  2. The Applicant’s case is that he flew to Iran on about 21 November 2018. By a letter dated 27 November 2018 (‘the letter’) the Secretary of State for the Home Department cancelled the Applicant’s ILR on the ground that his presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State also cancelled his travel document and excluded him from the United Kingdom.
  3. This letter was sent to the Applicant’s previous address. It was returned as “not called for”. The Applicant’s case is that he was in Iran and did not know about the letter. He says that on 19 December 2018 he left Iran to return to the United Kingdom. He was able to travel to Turkey but was prevented from boarding a flight to the United Kingdom. The Applicant was then ‘shuttled’ between Turkey and Iran. He no valid leave to enter either country.
  4. He then chose to go to Moldova. He was arrested there and detained for about five months. He was later released. He then went to Ukraine, where he was also arrested and detained.
  5. His representatives in the United Kingdom filed an application for a review by the Commission of the decisions to cancel his ILR and to exclude him from the United Kingdom. At this stage, neither the Applicant nor his representatives know why he is considered to be a risk to national security.
  6. His case is that he is vulnerable and has mental health issues. He is therefore likely to be particularly susceptible to harm from any adverse attention from the authorities or media that would arise from allegations that he is a risk to national security (if the anonymity order were not to be granted).
  7. It also seems that he is detained by the Ukrainian authorities. They are said to have a long history of human rights abuses, described in various human rights reports. His case is also that he would be at risk of ill treatment from the Ukrainian authorities if an anonymity order is not granted. He would also be at risk from other detainees.
  8. He contends that there is also a risk that Ukrainian authorities might deport him to Iraq. If he were deported when he could be identified as a risk to security, he could face detention, interrogation and torture. Human rights reports describe allegations of the torture of detainees, particularly terrorism suspects, by the Iraqi security forces.
  9. If the application for a review were to succeed, and an anonymity order had not been made, his case is that he would not be able to lead a normal life. He would be readily associated with these proceedings. This would affect his ability to form relationships and gain employment in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. His safety would be at risk from the general public and it would likely create difficulties in accessing basic services such as housing or help from organisations.
  10. The Commission cannot make findings of fact at this stage about this material. Some or all of C1’s contentions may be well founded.
  11. It is necessary to maintain the anonymity order in order to guard against the materialising of the risks on which C1 relies. The encroachment into the principle open justice made by this order is therefore necessary, and in the circumstances, the considerations on which C1 relies outweigh the rights under the ECHR of the press and of the public.

Related links

Sign up for alerts

Judgments archive

Judgments published on the judiciary website before 2012 can now be found on The National Archives web archive

Judgment Archive