C10 -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity)
SC/174/2020
IN THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION
APPEALS COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST
DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP
27 October 2020
Between:
C10
-v-
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
On the Appellant’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 21 September 2020 via email. On considering the documents consisting of an Application Notice, Explanatory Note, Witness Statement of Anne McMurdie and Legal Submissions (‘the documents’) lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)
It is Ordered that:
1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as C10.
2. Nothing may be published which, directly or indirectly, identifies C10 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.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 she 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
5.The Appellant contends that there is a real risk of violation of her article 3 and/or 8 rights were the basis of the SSHD’s deprivation decision to become known.
6. The Appellant is also concerned for the article 8 rights of her children were they to return to the UK.
7. The Commission cannot decide at this stage whether C10’s case in support of this application is well-founded. It must assume that it is, or might be, in the light of the risks which he describes. Those risks justify the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this order represents, and its interference with the Article 10 rights of the media and the public.
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JAY