CRF -v- Secretary of State for the Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002147

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 August 2025

Before:

The Hon. Sir Peter Lane

Between:

The King
on the application of
CRF
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Defence
(Defendant)

and

CRF2
CRF3
(Interested Parties)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission to apply for judicial review

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER BY THE HON. SIR PETER LANE

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name and those of the Interested Parties (who are two adult children of the Claimant) are 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 CRF and the Interested Parties as CRF2 and CRF3.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or the Interested Parties or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of all or any of them in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

2. The application for permission to bring judicial review will be placed before a judge for consideration in the week beginning 6 October 2025.

3. Not later than 19 September 2025, the Claimant shall file and serve a witness statement describing, to the best of his knowledge, the country in which the Interested Parties are currently residing; how they came to be in that country; and the circumstances of that residence.

4. No later than 29 September 2025, the Defendant shall inform the Court and the Claimant:

(a) whether, in the light of that witness statement, a decision has been taken to expedite a decision under ARAP in respect of the Interested Parties;
(b) whether applications have been made by the Defendant under section 6 and/or 8 of the Justice and Security Act 2013;
(c) if so, the proposed timetable for appointing a Special Advocate (as described in paragraph 36 of the Defendant’s summary grounds of defence); and
(d) if not, the dates by which such applications are proposed to be made.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant was accepted as eligible for relocation to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy on the basis of having been directly employed by a UK Government Department. Although the Claimant is in the UK, it appears that the Interested Parties are outside the UK in a situation of what may be some jeopardy (see further, below). I am satisfied that naming the Claimant and/or the Interested Parties might realistically lead to their identification by those who may wish them harm.
  2. Deferment of consideration of permission: On the present state of the materials, I do not consider that there is an arguable case in respect of any of the three pleaded grounds. Most, if not all, ARAP applications are likely to deserve prompt decision-making but the sheer quantity of these, and the necessarily limited resources available to the Defendant, mean that applicants are necessarily having to wait longer than they would like and longer than would be the case in an ideal world. The ground relating to an alleged failure to publish a timescale for dealing with ARAP applications generally is wholly misconceived. In the absence of a case for expedition of the kind described in paragraph 13 of the summary grounds of defence, the ECHR Article 8 ground founders on the basis that a decision (which will necessarily have to engage with the rights under that Article) has not been made.
  3. Two interrelated matters may, however, affect the decision on the grant of permission. First, there is reference at paragraph 21 of the summary grounds of defence to an email of 27 July 2025, in which it is alleged that the Interested Parties have been deported from Iran. This email does not appear to be before the Court. It is unclear whether any deportation was to Afghanistan. In paragraph 1 of the Claimant’s response to the summary grounds, it is said that “It appears that they have been removed to Afghanistan”. The reason for this assumption is unexplained.
  4. Second, following the announcement in Parliament on 15 July 2025 and the lifting of the super-injunction in the matter of KB-2023-003361, the Defendant has confirmed that information relating to the Claimant was included in the Dataset concerning ARAP applicants that was inadvertently released by the Defendant. A contra mundum injunction relating to the information in that Dataset remains in place, pursuant to the order of Chamberlain J on 15 July 2025.
  5. In the Claimant’s response, it said that “it remains unclear whether [the Interested Parties’] identities have also been leaked in the data breach.”
  6. The Defendant says he has “additional material in this case which is disclosable pursuant to the duty of candour but which cannot be disclosed into OPEN without damage to the interests of national security” (paragraph 36 of the summary grounds): hence the anticipated applications under the Justice and Security Act 2013.
  7. In these circumstances, I do not consider it would be in the interests of justice at this stage to determine the application for permission. I agree with the Defendant’s submission in paragraph 36 that the decision on permission should be deferred. This will allow the Claimant to file a witness statement dealing with the present circumstances of the Interested Parties. That may, in turn, have a bearing on whether the ARAP decision should be expedited, compatibly with the Defendant’s policy, and on the degree of expedition required to be made in respect of the anticipated applications under the 2013 Act.
  8. The timescales in the directions might be regarded by the Claimant as unduly generous to the Defendant. They are such that the judge considering the matter in October is likely to expect the Defendant to have demonstrated substantive progress in the case.

Signed: Sir Peter Lane
Date: 15 August 2025