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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002610

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

7 August 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
CNN

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for (1) anonymity and (2) urgent interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant or any other matters which could lead to her identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “CNN” and any matters which could lead to the identification of the Claimant shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:
    a. a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;
    b. if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be made on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors;
    c. any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors and that 3 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.
  5. The Defendant shall file and serve any response to the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief, together with any supporting evidence, by 4:00pm on Friday, 8 August 2025.
  6. The Claimant shall file and serve any reply to the Defendant’s response, together with any supporting evidence, by midday on Tuesday, 11 August 2025.
  7. The Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief, together with all material filed and served in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6 above, shall be placed before a judge of the Administrative Court on Wednesday, 12 August 2025, by no later than midday. At that stage, the judge may finally determine the Claimant’s application on paper, or give directions for further submissions and/or an oral hearing, which may be listed on very short notice to the parties.
  8. Liberty to each party to apply to vary or discharge this order, on no fewer than two days’ written notice to the other.
  9. Any application made under paragraph 8 above is to be referred to a High Court Judge or Deputy High Court Judge for consideration within 24 hours of its being issued.
  10. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. This matter is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
  2. The Claimant is a 51-year-old failed asylum-seeker who has sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Defendant’s failure to have determined her application for support and accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (‘the 1999 Act’), made on 10 July 2025.
  3. On 31 July 2025, the Claimant was given notice to vacate her accommodation on 14 August 2025. That accommodation had been provided under section 95 of the 1999 Act, prior to the refusal of her claim for asylum. The Claimant acknowledges that her entitlement under that statutory provision ceased on the refusal of her claim. Nevertheless, it is said that, were her application under section 4 to be granted, she would continue to live at the same address, because the same property bank is used by the Defendant when exercising each statutory power. It is said that the Claimant is destitute and will suffer adverse consequences in breach of her rights under Article 3 ECHR, should she to be evicted on 14 August.
  4. The Claimant seeks interim relief in the form of an order preventing her eviction for 14 days following the determination of her section 4 application, with liberty for the Defendant to apply to set aside that order, and for an urgent hearing to be listed prior to 14 August.
  5. In pre-action correspondence dated 4 August 2025, the Defendant stated that the ‘delay in Section 4 support has been delayed due to the open appeal against the discontinuation of Section 95 support’. By letter of the same date, the Claimant’s solicitors observed that the appeal against the discontinuation of section 95 support had been determined on 29 July 2025. They sought a response by midday today, which has not been received.
  6. It is appropriate that the Court consider the application for interim relief with the benefit of any response from the Defendant. The time within which that response is to be provided must reflect the intrinsic urgency of the application, in particular as the Claimant is being required to vacate her property in eight days’ time, and the Defendant’s stated reason for the delay in processing the application made under section 4 of the 1999 Act has fallen away.
  7. At this stage, I consider it appropriate to grant the anonymity order sought, by reason of the Claimant’s application to lodge further submissions following the refusal of her application for asylum, made on 9 July 2025, in relation to which an appointment has been scheduled to take place on 8 August 2025. The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision at paragraph 4(c) of my orders (which extends to the Defendant and would include representatives of the Press and other media, as interested parties). The order is subject to review (1) on 12 August 2025; (2) on application; or (3) of the Court’s own motion on notice to the parties.