COI -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001992

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

30 October 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
COI

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Order

On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, permission to amend the Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds, and expedition;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. 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 “COI”.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The claim is to be expedited.
  5. The Claimant is granted permission to amend his Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds to add a challenge to the review decision made by the Defendant on 15 July 2025.
  6. The Claimant is granted permission to rely upon his second witness statement, dated 22 July 2025, subject to any objections the Defendant may wish to make if and insofar as the witness statement raises facts and matters which were not placed before the decision- maker.
  7. The Defendant shall file Amended Summary Grounds of Defence no later than 14 days from the date of service of this order.
  8. The application for permission to apply for judicial review shall be placed before a Judge for determination on the papers, no later than 7 days after the Defendant files its Summary Grounds of Defence.
  9. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  10. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is at risk of physical harm in Afghanistan. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified. Because of the level of risk to the Claimant, the claim should be expedited. There has already been considerable delay by the Defendant and the Court.
  2. I have considered the competing submissions from the parties on the application to amend to add a challenge to the review decision. Applying the authorities and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide (2025 ed.) at paragraph 7.11, whilst “rolling” judicial review is frowned upon, the Court has a discretion, in appropriate cases, to allow an amendment adding a challenge to a further decision, instead of requiring a new claim to be commenced. In my judgment, this is a case in which the overriding objective of resolving claims justly, expeditiously and proportionately will be met by allowing the Claimant to add the challenge to the review decision of 15 July 2025 to his challenge to the original decision of 29 September 2024. I am particularly concerned by the delay in this case, given the high level of risk to the Claimant’s safety. Requiring him to file a new claim will inevitably cause further delay.
  3. In principle, the Claimant may adduce further evidence at this stage. However, objection may be taken to new material being relied upon if it was not available to the decision-maker.

Signed: Mrs Justice Lang
Dated: 30 October 2025