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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002644

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

11 August 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
CBB

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for (1) anonymity and (2) urgent interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant or any other matters which could lead to his identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “CBB” and any matters which could lead to the identification of the Claimant shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:

a) a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;

b) if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be made on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors;

c) any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors and that 3 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.

  1. Pending the Court’s further consideration of the Claimant’s application for interim relief in accordance with the directions made below, the Defendant is not to disperse the Claimant from his existing accommodation, provided under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, at Barry House, 261 Barry Road, Dulwich, London SE22 0JT.
  2. The Defendant shall file and serve any response to the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief, together with any supporting evidence, by 4:00pm on Wednesday 13 August 2025.
  3. The Claimant shall file and serve any reply to the Defendant’s response, together with any supporting evidence, by 4:00pm on Friday 15 August 2025.
  4. The Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief, together with all material filed and served in accordance with paragraphs 6 and 7 above, shall be placed before a judge of the Administrative Court on Monday 18 August 2025, by no later than midday. At that stage, the judge may finally determine the Claimant’s application on paper, or give directions for further submissions and/or an oral hearing, which may be listed on very short notice to the parties.
  5. Liberty to each party to apply to vary or discharge this order, on no fewer than two days’ written notice to the other.
  6. Any application made under paragraph 9 above is to be referred to a High Court Judge or Deputy High Court Judge for consideration within 24 hours of its being issued.
  7. Costs reserved.

    Reasons

    1. This matter is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
    2. The Claimant has a history of severe mental ill-health. He has sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Defendant’s decisions: (1) dated 29 July 2025 to refuse a request that he be accommodated in Eastbourne; and (2) dated 1 August 2025, to allocate accommodation in Swindon, as a result of which he will no longer be provided with asylum support accommodation in the Dulwich area, where he currently resides. The effect of those decisions is said to be that he will be unable to maintain a close relationship with his five-year-old daughter, or to access the support services upon which he relies to mitigate the risk of deterioration of his mental health. The grounds of review are that the Defendant has failed to consider all relevant material and factors including, as a primary consideration, the best interests of the Claimant’s child; and that her decision not to accommodate him in Eastbourne constitutes a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 ECHR rights.
    3. Albeit that, by letter dated 1 August 2025, the Defendant invited the provision of further evidence following which her decision could be reconsidered, it would appear that she has not engaged with the Claimant’s solicitors since they submitted additional material and pre- action correspondence on his behalf. Absent the interim relief which I have granted, the Claimant is to be dispersed, tomorrow (12 August), to accommodation in Swindon; approximately 98 miles from Dulwich and 150 miles from Eastbourne.
    4. Whilst it will be appropriate for the court to consider the application for interim relief with the benefit of any response from the Defendant, I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried and that, in the circumstances currently known to me, the balance of convenience lies in the grant of the interim relief which I have ordered (itself constituting a compromise), for a short period, whereafter the application will be considered afresh, in accordance with the directions which I have given.
    5. At this stage, I consider it appropriate to grant the anonymity order sought, having regard to the Claimant’s complex mental health conditions and the fact that these proceedings relate to the welfare of a young child. The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision at paragraph 4(c) of my orders (which extends to the Defendant and would include representatives of the Press and other media, as interested parties). The order is subject to review, on application, or of the court’s own motion on notice to the parties.

    Signed: Naomi Ellenbogen

    11 August 2025