In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
17 July 2020
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 1 July 2020 by email, and not having notified the Commission that they oppose the application;
On considering the witness statement of Daniel Furner, the Explanatory Note and written submissions lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice 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 SIAC Procedure Rules 2003 the Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be referred to in these proceedings only as C6.
2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 nothing may be published which, directly or indirectly, identifies him 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 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.
1.C6 appeals against a decision of the Secretary of State refusing his claim for asylum.
2. He contends that if he were identified as the appellant in these proceedings, or associated with any other proceedings, he would be at risk of suffering serious harm in Afghanistan, were he returned there, because of the national security allegations which the Secretary of State has made against him. He denies those allegations.
3. He also contends that if he were identified as the appellant in these proceedings, those allegations would expose other people, who are associated with him, and live in Afghanistan, to a risk of serious harm.
- He further argues that an anonymity order is necessary to enable him, and his witnesses, to give full evidence on his appeal. The evidence that he is likely to give on his appeal will create, or increase, the risk to which he would be exposed on return. If he is anonymised, that risk, and the risk entailed to others who are associated with him by giving evidence, will be reduced.
- It is also his case that there is a risk of reprisals in the United Kingdom if he is not anonymised, a risk which he does not overstate, but which, he says, cannot be excluded.
- Finally, he relies on the risk of harm to his reputation which the Secretary of State’s allegations create, harm which may be irremediable.
- The Commission is not in a position to decide, on the basis of the documents which support the application, whether or not the Appellant’s fears are well-founded. It must assume, at this stage, that they are or might be.
1.The risk that the Appellant’s fears will turn out to be well-founded justifies 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.