CBK -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002308

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 January 2026

Before:

Mr Justice Johnson

Between:

The King
on the application of
CBK
(Claimant)

-v-

(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
(Defendants)

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the parties

ORDER BY Mr Justice Johnson

Anonymity

  1. The claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as CBK (“the cipher”).
  2. The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.
  3. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher.
  4. Pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  5. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant.
    (b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.

    Extension of time
  6. Insofar as it is necessary, the claimant is granted an extension of time so that his claim is to be treated as having been brought within time.

    Permission to claim judicial review
  7. Permission to claim judicial review is granted on both grounds.

    Case Management Directions
  8. The Defendants must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.
  9. The Defendants may each comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
  10. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
  11. The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
  12. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
  13. The Defendants must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
  14. The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
  15. The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 2 days. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

The claimant is entitled to anonymity pursuant to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

I consider that ground 2 is arguable as against the second defendant. There was (it seems to me) a plain misunderstanding about the scope of the offence by the police, and this may arguably have resulted in investigative failings that breach article 4 ECHR.

I am doubtful whether, if ground 1 stood alone, it would have merited a grant of permission. Section 3 of the 2015 Act does not preclude prosecution for trafficking for organ harvesting where no reward has been paid. Section 3(5) amply covers trafficking for organ harvesting where the putative donor is subjected to force, threats or deception. The police’s initial misconception about the ambit of section 3 does not mean that there is an arguable point of construction in this respect. Nevertheless, there are broader arguments about whether section 3(5) adequately covers all different forms of trafficking (for example where they involve abuse of authority or preying on vulnerabilities). There is also a link between ground 1 and 2. I am also doubtful as to whether ground 2 is viable as against the first defendant but there is unlikely to be any substantial saving of time or costs by limiting the grant of permission. I do not therefore limit the arguments that may be advanced under either ground 1 or 2.

Signed: Mr Justice Johnson

Date: 5 January 2026