Claim no: SC/168/2020
In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
3 April 2020
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
ORDER FOR ANONYMITY
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 (as defined in the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)) having been served with an explanatory note by email on 6 March 2020 and not having indicated that they wished to oppose the making of this Order
AND ON considering the documents lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of namely (1) the application notice; (2) the supporting witness statement of Shirin Marker dated 6 March 2020 and accompanying exhibits; (3) legal submissions on behalf of the Appellant; (4) a draft of this order; and (5) the explanatory note (‘the documents’)
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 HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and will continue to be known in these proceedings as C4.
2. Nothing may be published which directly or indirectly identifies her 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.
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.
1. The Appellant was deprived of her British citizenship in 2019. The Secretary of State alleges that the Appellant is a dual British/Bangladeshi national who travelled to Syria and is aligned with ISIL. She denies those allegations.
2. She is in a camp in Syria with her young children. She fears reprisals if she is identified as the appellant in these proceedings or as the subject of the Secretary of State’s allegations. She fears that she will be exposed to a risk of ill treatment breaching article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to the risk of arbitrary detention.
3. The Commission is not in a position to decide, on the basis of the documents which support the application, whether or not those fears are well-founded. It must assume, at this stage, that they are.
4. The risk that the Appellant’s fears will turn out to be well-founded outweighs the article 10 rights of the public and the media, and justifies the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this Order represents.