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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001371

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

23 September 2025

Before:

Upper Tribunal Judge Church
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
CET

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance

ORDER BY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH

  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 ‘CET’.

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

    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    i. the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case files, 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 may 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.
  2. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  3. Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant 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.

(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 21 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 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.

(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 21 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 14 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

Anonymity
(1) The Claimant alleges that she is the victim of offences of trafficking under s. 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As such, s. 2(1)(db) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act1992 applies, so that the Claimant is entitled to anonymity by s. 1 of that Act. It is necessary that the Claimant’s identity is protected in the context of these proceedings.

Permission
(2) The Claimant is a national of Latvia, who claims to have lived in the UK since 2009. On 29 October 2021 the Claimant was granted indefinite leave to remain following an application made under the EU Settlement Scheme immigration rules.

(3) On 14 May 2022, a decision maker for the Defendant made a decision to deport the Claimant. The Claimant appealed that decision and made a human rights claim and an asylum claim. All these matters remain under consideration by the Defendant.

(4) Following a request that the Claimant be referred to the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”), on 07 January 2025 it was decided that there were “reasonable grounds” to conclude that the Claimant was a victim of modern slavery.

(5) On 31 January 2025 a decision maker for the Defendant made a ‘public order disqualification’ decision (the “POD Decision”) in respect of the Claimant on the basis that, while it was accepted that the Claimant’s need for modern slavery specific protections was high (see [94]), the risk to public order posed by the Claimant (given her significant criminal convictions in the UK and in her home country, mainly in relation to involvement in the illicit drugs trade) outweighed her need for those protections, and there was no credible suspicion of a real and immediate risk of re- trafficking in the Claimant’s case.

(6) The consequence of the POD Decision is that the Claimant has ceased to be entitled to modern slavery support including financial support, accommodation and access to a support worker, and no further decision will be made in respect of her referral into the NRM, which has the consequence that she is no longer protected under the NRM from being removed from the UK and the Claimant will not be considered for permission to stay in the UK as a victim of trafficking or slavery.

(7) By these proceedings the Claimant seeks permission to challenge the POD Decision and the statutory guidance pursuant to which the POD Decision was made.

(8) By Ground 1 the Claimant challenges the POD Decision on the basis that it was irrational for the Defendant, having accepted that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the Claimant was a victim of modern slavery, to rely upon the conduct in which she was engaged when she says that she was enslaved in concluding that the risk to public order that the Claimant posed outweighed her need for slavery specific protection.

(9) While this ground (and each of the grounds put forward by the Claimant) is resisted vigorously by the Defendant, the hurdle for a grant of permission is a relatively low one and I am satisfied that the Claimant’s Ground 1 comfortably clears the hurdle of “arguability”. Permission is warranted. My grant of permission extends to each of the grounds set out in the Claimant’s ‘Detailed statement of facts and grounds’.

Signed: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHURCH
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Date: 23. 09. 2025