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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001960

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

29 October 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Swift

Between:

The King on the application of
CTW

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Order

On applications by the Claimant (a) for directions for anonymity; (b) for permission to amend the Claim Form; and (c) for permission to rely on further evidence

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant (including the Application Notices dated 18 July 2025 and 29 August 2025), and the Defendant

ORDER by The Honourable Mr Justice Swift

Anonymity

  1. 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 shall 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 CTW.
  2. 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 him in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (iii) 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;
    (iv) 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;
    (v) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.
    Application Notice dated 18 July 2025
  5. No order is made on the application to amend the Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds.
  6. The application to rely on the second witness statement of the Claimant, dated 18 July 2025 is allowed.
    Application Notice dated 29 August 2025
  7. The application to amend the Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds, is allowed.
  8. The application to rely on the third witness statement of the Claimant, dated 28 August 2025 is allowed.
    Further directions
  9. The Defendant shall, by 4pm on 19 November 2025 file and serve amended Summary Grounds of Defence.
  10. Any application by the Defendant pursuant to section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, shall be made by 4pm on 19 November 2025.
  11. The Claimant shall file and serve any Reply by 4pm on 24 November 2025.
  12. Within 7 days of the Claimant’s compliance with paragraph 11 above, the papers relevant to the application for permission to apply for judicial review, shall be placed before a judge for the consideration of permission. If permission to apply for judicial review is granted, the court shall consider what (if any) further directions to make for the expedition of the determination of the claim.

Reasons

  1. Given the Claimant’s circumstances, as described in the Claim Form and evidence filed in support of it, it is appropriate for him to be anonymised in these proceedings.
  2. The claim concerns a decision under the ARAP scheme. The claim was filed on 17 June 2025 and issued the same day. The Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds pursue a range of grounds of challenge and are not laid out in an order that is entirely coherent. However, in substance: (a) Grounds 3 and 8 challenge the substance of a review decision made on 11 July 2025 upholding an earlier decision to refuse the Claimant’s ARAP application; (b) Grounds 4, 5 and 7 challenge the sufficiency of the material relied on for the purposes of taking the review decision and the reasons given in support of the decision (Ground 7 seems to me to be substantially to the same effect as Ground 5); and (c) Ground 6 challenges a separate decision not to publish the criteria against which ARAP applications made by former members of Afghan special forces are considered.
  3. When the application to amend was originally made (by Application Notice dated 18 July 2025) the Defendant objected to the application. However, the Defendant does not object to the application to amend as made in the later Application Notice dated 29 August 2025, even though both applications to amend are in materially the same form. I consider the Defendant was correct not to pursue the objection originally made. Notwithstanding that the focus of the challenge has now changed (to be on the review decision rather than the initial refusal of the Claimant’s ARAP application), the circumstances are not such as to raise the prospect of “rolling judicial review”.
  4. The Defendant has not objected to the applications to rely on the Claimant’s second and third witness statements.
  5. Given the Claimant’s circumstances in Afghanistan there is a case for expedition of this claim. That can be better considered when the application for permission to apply for judicial review is considered. By that time, the court will also know whether or not a closed material procedure is needed for the fair determination of the issues in this case.