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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003063

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

10 September 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
CHO

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(HO Ref: 111445022)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration, directions and interim relief;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. There shall be a stay on the removal of the Claimant from the United Kingdom until the determination of the permission application or further order.
  2. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a. The name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “CHO”.
  3. Pursuant to section 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.
  4. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    a. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    b. 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    c. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  5. The Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance, including a response to the application for interim relief, must be filed and served no more than 14 days after the date of service of the claim form and supporting documents.
  6. The Defendant must file and serve an indexed and paginated bundle of all relevant documents in its possession or control relating to the Claimant which are not already included in the Claimant’s bundle, no more than 21 days after the date of service of the claim form and supporting documents.
  7. Any Reply from the Claimant must be filed and served no more than 7 days after service of documents by the Defendant pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7 above.
  8. The papers are to be referred to a Judge for a decision whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review and interim relief as soon as reasonably possible thereafter.
  9. The claim is to be expedited.
  10. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 hours notice to the other party.
  11. Costs reserved.

THIS IS AN INJUNCTION. BREACH OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS ORDER MAY GIVE RISE TO CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN IF AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE TO VARY OR DISCHARGE THIS ORDER, IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS OR UNTIL SUCH AN ORDER IS MADE.

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant seeks asylum and claims to be a victim of trafficking. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
  2. The Claimant challenges (1) the negative reasonable grounds decision under the National Referral Mechanism, made on 4 July 2025; (2) the refusal on 9 September 2025 to reconsider the claim in light of the psychiatric report dated 8 September 2025; (3) the decision on 28 August 2025 to set removal directions to Albania for 11 September 2025.
  3. The Claimant contends that the Defendant erred in reaching the negative reasonable grounds by (1) misapplying the statutory threshold; (2) misdirecting herself in relation to the means test; (3) failing to engage with the Claimant’s witness statement and to reconsider the claim; (4) failing to engage with the psychiatric evidence.
  4. The negative reasonable grounds decision accepted that the Claimant was 17 years old at the time of the alleged exploitation in Albania and therefore the guidance on child trafficking cases applied.
  5. On the basis of the information before me now, I consider that the Claimant’s grounds are arguable. In particular, it appears that due consideration has not been given to the psychiatric report dated 8 September 2025. There has been insufficient analysis of the clinical findings, no consideration of how they bore upon the credibility issues; and no trauma-informed approach as required by policy. This is possibly a result of shortage of time on the part of the decision-maker.
  6. This application has come before me in the afternoon of 10 September 2025 and the Claimant is due to be removed from the UK at 7.45 am tomorrow, 11 September 2025. In my view, it will not be possible for this claim to be properly considered by the Court if the removal takes place tomorrow.
  7. The Claimant is faced with removal to a country where he claims to be at risk of harm. Realistically, he will not be able to pursue his legal challenge if he is removed. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of a stay on removal until the determination of the claim.