August 15, 2025

CAG -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002709

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 August 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mould

Between:

CAG
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence
(Defendant)

and

(1) CSH
(2) CSB
(3) CRS
(4) CDY
(5) CBP
(6) CLC
(7) CFD
(Interested Parties)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief and directions

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mould:

Anonymity:

(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s and the Interested Parties names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “CAG” and the Interested Parties as “CSH”, “CSB”, “CRS”, “CDY”, “CBP”, “CLC” and “CFD” respectively.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or any of the Interested Parties or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or any of the Interested Parties in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or any of the Interested Parties;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or any of the Interested Parties, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Injunction:

(a) The Defendant’s decision of 4 August 2025 to withdraw support from the Claimant and his family with effect from 18 August 2025 is stayed until further order of this court.

(b) Until further order of this court, the Defendant must continue to provide the support currently provided to the Claimant and his family.

(c) Liberty to the Defendant to apply on notice to discharge or vary paragraphs 2(a) and/or (b) of this order.

Timetable for oral hearing on interim relief:

(a) The Defendant may file and serve any response to the application for interim relief by 4pm on Wednesday 20 August 2025.

(b) The Claimant may file and serve any reply by 4pm on Friday 22 August 2025.

(c) There shall be an oral hearing before a High Court judge of the Claimant’s application for interim relief within 7 days thereafter. Time estimate 2.5 hours.

Liberty to apply.

5. Costs reserved.

REASONS

Anonymity: On the basis of the evidence before the court, the Claimant and his family’s current circumstances are such that orders for anonymity are presently needed in the interests of their protection. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Interim relief: This proposed claim for judicial review challenges the lawfulness of the Defendant’s decision to withdraw support and accommodation in Pakistan from the Claimant and his family (his wife and six young children) following the refusal of entry clearance to the UK under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The Claimant, his wife and children had been found to be eligible for assistance under the ARAP policy on 4 August 2023. Since then they have been awaiting a decision on entry clearance following their arrival in Pakistan in September 2023.

Since early October 2023, the family have been dependent upon UK Government support in the form of accommodation, meals and essentials during the intervening period of some 21 months. The Claimant has not been permitted to work in Pakistan.

Following notification of the refusal of entry clearance, on 4 August 2025 the Claimant received a letter informing him that, in light of the refusal of entry clearance, the UK Government had decided to withdraw support for him and his family with effect from 18 August 2025. The Claimant has since been taken to a deportation centre in Pakistan. His wife and children face imminent eviction onto the street and destitution.

The Claimant is entitled to challenge the decision to deny him entry clearance by making an application to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) within 28 days after he was served with notice of that decision. The Claimant has instructed his solicitors to make that application. In the present claim, the Claimant seeks to argue that the decision to withdraw support from him and his family is unlawful on the grounds advanced in his statement of facts and grounds. The Claimant’s solicitors have notified the Defendant’s solicitors of his intention to bring that claim; and of the need for an urgent response confirming that support will be reinstated, given the imminence of 18 August 2025. The Defendant’s solicitors have recently confirmed that the Defendant will not reinstate support and contends that the decision communicated to the Claimant on 4 August 2025 is lawful.

Against that background, the Claimant now seeks interim relief on an urgent basis. By paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft order, the Claimant seeks an order suspending the decision of 4 August 2025 to withdraw support and that the Defendant must reinstate and continue to provide the support given since September 2023. As that order, if granted, would be mandatory in effect, I have to consider whether there is a strong prima facie case which justifies the grant of a mandatory order against a public body. In my judgment the key considerations are these. The support currently provided by the Defendant is the sole means of support available to the Claimant’s family. There are 6 children under the age of 10 years old who face the immediate prospect of homelessness and destitution from 19 August 2025 onwards. The Claimant is to exercise his right to seek a review of the decision to deny him entry clearance into the UK. On their face, the grounds of judicial review advanced in this claim raise serious issues to be tried. An order requiring the Defendant to maintain the support currently provided to the Claimant’s family for a short period of time, pending an early return date for an inter partes hearing of the Claimant’ application for interim relief is, in my view, compellingly justified.

However, there is no such justification in advance of that hearing for the interim relief sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the draft order. Those paragraphs seek mandatory orders which would go considerably beyond the scope of this proposed claim for judicial review, which is focused on the decision of 4 August 2025 to withdraw support.

Signed: Mr Justice Mould
Dated: 15 August 2025