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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-BHM -000164

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

3 October 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

The King
on the application of
CTF

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s summary grounds of defence

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or 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 CTF.

(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 a redacted copy of any statement of case 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;

(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.

  1. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £976.
  3. Further provision as to costs:

(a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

  • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
  • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

  • the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

5. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

    (a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 1 hour, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

    (b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

    (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

    (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

    (iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

    (iv) this Order;

    (v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

    (vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

    (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

    (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

    (i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

    (ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

    (iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

    (e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

    (f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

    REASONS

    Anonymity

    The Claimant is an asylum seeker. The Claimant asserts that his safety is at risk were he to be returned to Albania. Notwithstanding that the Claimant’s claim for asylum, if he was returned to Albania has been rejected and the Claimant’s appeals against that decision exhausted, the Claimant has made a fresh claim for asylum which has in turn been rejected, but that rejection is the subject matter of the present application for Judicial Review. The balance lies, for the moment with granting anonymity to protect the Claimant from a possible risk of harm. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

    Permission general points

    The grounds set out extensively what are referred to as the relevant law and authorities but, in setting out the grounds on which the two decisions are challenged, the reasons for challenge are both opaque and generic, failing to identify the elements of each decision which are said to amount to public law grounds for challenge. These comments apply particularly to ground 2, but to ground 1 also.

    Ground 1

    (1) Ground 1 is that there was no “anxious scrutiny” by the Defendant in coming to the decision that there were no reasonable grounds for the assertion that the Claimant had been a victim of modern slavery or trafficking whilst in the UK.
    (2) The principal matters that the decision maker considered showed that there were no reasonable grounds for concluding that the Claimant had been the victim of modern slavery/trafficking were: (a) the substantial number of discrepancies between the account given by the Claimant in the NRM Referral and his witness statement; (b) that the Claimant answered “no” in his detention induction record, when asked whether he had been the victim of exploitation; and (c) the Claimant only raised modern slavery/trafficking immediately before he was to be deported.
    (3) Ground 1 asserts that the decision maker ought to have considered whether there were good reasons for: (a) the asserted discrepancies; (b) not answering yes to the question of whether the Claimant had ever been the victim of exploitation and (c) for disclosing his alleged experiences of exploitation so late.
    (4) It is a matter for the decision maker what weight they attributed to (2) (a) – (c) in concluding that there were no reasonable grounds for concluding that the Claimant had been a victim of modern slavery/trafficking. The Claimant has not demonstrated that it is even reasonably arguable that the Defendant did not carefully consider the factors, on the evidence before them, in making the no reasonable grounds decision. The obligation of anxious scrutiny does not include seeking explanations from the Claimant of discrepancies in his evidence, reasons for not answering “yes” in the detention record or for his delay in raising the issue of exploitation, particularly where, as here the Claimant was legally represented.

    Ground 2

    (1) Ground 2 challenges the decision that the submissions made by the Claimant’s legal representatives on 7 May 2025 did not amount to a fresh claim for asylum.
    (2) The grounds of challenge are generic asserting that the Defendant’s consideration of the issue of whether the new submissions amounted to a fresh claim were inadequate, Wednesbury unreasonable and an immigration judge may have come to a different conclusion on the facts. There is also an assertion that the Defendant’s decision is contrary to the principles laid down in Ladd v Marshall on the finality of litigation.
    (3) It is for the Claimant to explain why any of the public law grounds for challenge are met in this case. They have failed to do so by simply setting out three grounds upon which the decision might be challenged.
    (4) The decision is rational on its face and does not depend on a determination of whether the facts asserted by the Claimant of exploitation in the UK are true.
    (5) The principles set out in the case of Ladd v Marshall are neither explained, nor is it obviously apparent how they would assist the Claimant in this case.

    Costs

    The general rule is that the unsuccessful party should pay the successful parties’ costs. In this case the unsuccessful party is the Claimant, there is no reason to depart form the general rule. The amount claimed by the Defendant for time spent and hourly rate charged appears reasonable and the costs are therefore assessed in the amount claimed of £976

    Signed: HHJ Rawlings
    Date: 3/10/25