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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002847

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

27 August 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Sweeting

Between:

The King on the application of
CHG

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sweeting

  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 “CHG”
    (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.
    (c) 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.
  2. The respondent is to file and serve a response to the application for urgent interim relief by 4:00 PM on Monday 1 September.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. Given the background to the claim it can be inferred that naming the Claimant will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. Further the claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Directions: I conclude from the chronology set out in the application that the Defendant intended to respond to the pre action protocol letter but sent a reply which related to a different matter concerning the same Claimant. The Defendant’s position in relation to the matters relied upon in support of the application for interim relief is simply unclear at present. The Defendant should have the opportunity to respond to this application. I nevertheless accept that the application is, on the material before me, arguably urgent and accordingly a truncated timetable is appropriate.