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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003139

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

17 September 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Heather Williams

Between:

The King on the application of
CPY

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mrs Justice Heather Williams:

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “CPY”.
    (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 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;
    (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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    (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. Prohibitory injunction:
    (a) The Defendant must not remove the Claimant from the United Kingdom until the Court has determined his application for interim relief in accordance with the directions set out below or until further order (if earlier).
    (b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 2(a) above, any such application to be served on each party.
    THIS IS A PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. SEE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW GUIDE 2024, §17.7.4
  3. Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:
    (a) The Defendant must respond to the psychiatric report prepared by Dr Balasurbramaniam (dated 9 September 2025 and provided to the Defendant on 10 September 2025) by 4pm on 25 September 2025 and may file and serve any additional response to the application for interim relief by the same date.
    (b) The Claimant may file and serve a reply to that response by 4pm on 30 September 2025.
    (c) The papers are to be referred to a judge for a decision whether to grant interim relief within 7 days thereafter.

Reasons

Anonymity: The Claimant is a recognised potential victim of trafficking. There is an asserted risk of re-trafficking if his identity is known. Further, the evidence in this case involves detailed reference to the Claimant’s psychiatric health and medical needs. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Prohibitory injunction: The Claimant seeks to judicial review the decisions of 18 August 2025 to impose a Public Order Disqualification Order (“POD”), thereby disqualifying him from the protections of the National Referral Mechanism, following the Positive Reasonable Grounds decision. He also challenges the related decisions to maintain his immigration detention and to set removal directions for 18 September 2025 (tomorrow). He argues that the statutory power under which the POD was made (s.63 Nationality and Borders Act 2022) is incompatible with Article 10 ECAT and Article 4 ECHR (Ground 1). He also contends that the Defendant’s exclusion of consideration of the risk of re-trafficking in the country of return is unlawful (Grounds 2 and 3) and that the assessment he is not at immediate risk of re-trafficking is unlawful (Ground 5). He submits that there was a failure to conduct an individualised assessment in his case (Ground 4) and that the Defendant has unlawfully failed to reconsider the POD and maintained removal directions in light of the psychiatric report of Dr Balasubramaniam served on 10 September 2025 (Ground 6).
The Claimant seeks orders by way of interim relief staying the POD, staying his removal and directing his release from detention.
Although there was earlier pre-action correspondence (prior to the service of the psychiatric report and in relation to contentions that do not mirror the current grounds), it does not appear that the Claim Form or Urgent Consideration application has been served on the Defendant. Accordingly, the Court does not have the benefit of the Defendant’s response to the Claimant’s grounds or to the interim relief application. The interests of justice require that the Defendant be given an opportunity to respond before the interim relief application is determined. However, I also note that the Defendant has had an opportunity to respond to the psychiatric report but has not as yet done so. Even allowing for the fact that the Claimant’s documents arguably over-state its contents and the author’s conclusion, I accept that it may be capable (I put it no higher than that) of impacting upon the matters in issue.
Accordingly, I also consider that the interests of justice require that the Defendant indicates her response to this new evidence and the Court has the opportunity to evaluate the same before the Claimant’s removal takes place (which would render these proceedings otiose).
I have therefore granted a limited form of interim relief, delaying the Claimant’s removal until the Defendant has addressed these matters and the Court is then in a position to determine the interim relief application.
I note for completeness that on 16 September 2025 I refused a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review in R (Dos Santos) v SSHD (AC-2025-LON-000577) a case that involved the equivalent issues to those raised by Ground 1 in these proceedings.