October 17, 2025

CDF -v- The Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002643

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 October 2025

Before:

Hugo Keith KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
CDF

-v-

The Secretary of State for Defence

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, including the claim form and application for interim relief, the Defendant’s applications of 3 and 10 September 2025, the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and summary grounds of defence, and the Claimant’s Reply

IT IS ORDERED by Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, that

Permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
An order for anonymity is made:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction:

i. the name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public, or to any person who is not a party to these proceedings; and

ii. the Claimant is to be referred to as CDF.

(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 his identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(c) Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case or any other document filed with the Court, including the Confidential Schedule, from the court records only if they have been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant or her son have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.

(d) Any non-party wishing to obtain or inspect documents in the case must do so by making an application to the Court, to be served on both parties, on 48 hours’ notice.

Expedition: The hearing of the claim is expedited. The hearing is to be listed no later than the end of the Michaelmas term 2025.
Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 21 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.

(b) The Defendant may 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.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 14 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.

(d) 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 14 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.

(e) 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 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(f) The Defendant 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 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) 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.

(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) The Claimant’s case is that he is an Afghan national who worked in the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS) in advancing positions of responsibility between 2010 and 2021, after which the Taliban took control. He managed special operations teams in counter-terrorism intelligence and surveillance and contributed to assist the military, security and counter-terrorism objectives of the British government in Afghanistan. Many of those he helped to imprison now occupy positions of power in the Taliban administration and he believes that he and his family are at urgent and grave risk. He is certain that the Taliban have in their possession many incriminating documents concerning him, and that his name will be on a list of people sought by the Taliban as enemies and traitors.

(2) He and his family are in hiding in Afghanistan, having fled to Pakistan in November 2022, but having been made subject to a mass forced deportation back to Afghanistan in May 2023. His brother, who was employed by the FCDO, was relocated to the UK on 21 October 2022 – thereby elevating the risk to the Claimant and his family.

(3) On 17 December 2024 he made an Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) application for relocation to the UK. On 10 June 2025 his solicitors sent a pre-action protocol letter challenging the Defendant’s delay in making a decision on his ARAP application and failure to expedite his case in accordance with the MoD’s expedition policy. On 27 June 2025 the Government Legal Department (GLD) provided a PAP response stating that the MoD, as a matter of policy, does not provide exact dates of when ARAP eligibility decisions are communicated, but that it would take a decision as quickly as practicable. It stated that the delay was not unreasonable or irrational, that the MoD was dealing with an “unprecedented situation” and a “very large volume of applications”. The MoD had decided not to expedite the application.

(4) On 5 August 2025 the Claimant filed an application for judicial review, seeking permission to challenge the Defendant’s failure to determine, alternatively ongoing delay in determining, his ARAP application of 17 December 2024 and his application of 10 June 2025 for expedition. He contends that other NDS officers who worked for him have already been relocated to the UK, but that there has been an unexplained delay in his case and no evidence that the MoD has considered expediting his case; alternatively, there is no good reason for why expedition should be refused. He sought a number of forms of relief, including an order that the Defendant determine his ARAP application within 2 weeks.

(5) The Claimant further made an application for interim relief, seeking anonymity for himself and his brother and expedition of his judicial review permission application, following the deadline for the Claimant’s Reply to the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and summary grounds of defence, both on the basis of the risk to the Claimant and his family.

(6) On 3 September 2025 the Defendant made an application for permission to extend time in which to file its AOS and summary grounds. The application was opposed by the Claimant. On 10 September 2025 the Defendant filed a further application for an extension of time. For reasons that are unclear, neither application was considered by the Court. On 11 September 2025 the AOS and summary grounds were filed. They make clear that the Claimant’s request for expedition was refused on 7 July 2025. A Reply was served by the Claimant on 19 September 2025.

(7) It is arguable that the Defendant is in breach of its policy on expedition, contained within the DARR Policy Guidance for Caseworkers, given the risks to the Claimant and his family. It is also arguable that the delay is irrational, given those risks. Permission is granted.

(8) The Claimant makes an application for anonymity, given the grave risks he says he, his wife and his 4 children under the age of 12 face. The need to protect them outweighs the interest in publishing their names/details for the purpose of open justice. Anonymity is ordered.

(9) It is appropriate to order expedition of the claim, given that what the Claimant seeks is expedition of this ARAP application. Not granting expedition would defeat the purpose of what is an arguable claim.

Case NOT suitable for hearing by a Deputy High Court Judge

Signed: Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Date: 15 October 2025