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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000814

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

29 September 2029

Before:

David Pievsky KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Beween:

The King
on the application of
CBR

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for judicial review, and anonymity And on an application by the Defendant for a stay of the proceedings

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties

ORDER BY DAVID PIEVSKY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

    1. Anonymity:

    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

    (i) the Claimant’s name is 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 CBR.

    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the 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.

    9c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

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

    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

    (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.

    1. Stay pending further decision: The Court hereby approves the consent order in which the parties agreed that the claim would be stayed until the date on which the Defendant served a supplementary decision on the Claimant, with the Claimant then having permission to file and serve a substituted statement of facts and grounds (“SFGs”) (and supporting evidence and documents) within 21 days of that supplementary decision; and the Defendant having permission to file and serve an Acknowledgment of Service with Summary Grounds of Defence within 21 days of the Claimant filing the SFGs. Accordingly and for the avoidance of doubt the Claimant has permission to rely on the amended SFGs filed on 20 May 2025.
    2. Stay pending other litigation: These proceedings are now stayed pending the outcome of ABW v SSHD (AC-2024-LON-001587). Within 21 days of the ABW judgment being handed down, either:
      (1) The Claimant is to file and serve any application to further amend his claim, or confirmation that no application to amend is being made; or
      (2) The parties do file a further agreed proposed consent order for any further stay.
    3. In the event that the claim is not further stayed as set out at paragraph 2(b) above, the following additional directions do apply:
      1) Within 42 days of the ABW judgment being handed down, the Defendant do file and serve an Acknowledgement of Service;
      (2) Within 49 days of the ABW judgment being handed down, the Claimant do, if so advised, file and serve a Reply to the Summary Grounds of Defence.
      (3) The matter thereafter be considered by the Court on the papers to determined the application for permission.
    4. Costs in the case.

    REASONS

    (1) Anonymity: The Claimant is said to be the victim of an offence of trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. There is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family would increase the risk of harm at the hands of individuals said to have done serious harm to him in the past. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

    (2) Stay: I have given retrospective effect to the previous stay which was agreed between the parties but not yet approved by the Court. In relation to the prospective stay, the Claimant seeks to impose conditions, in particular that the Defendant reinstates the NRM claim on an interim basis, carries out and discloses further risk assessments. I am not persuaded that these conditions are necessary and justified. The logic of the case for a stay, pending the decision in ABW, seems to me to apply whether or not those steps are taken (which is no doubt a matter which the Defendant will consider).

    Signed: David Pievsky KC
    Date: 29/09/25