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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002778

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

20 August 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Sweeting

Between:

The King on the application of
CYB

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and urgent relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sweeting

  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 CYB.
    (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.
    Directions
  2. The Defendant shall file and serve a response to the Claimant’s application for urgent interim relief by 4:00 PM on Wednesday 27th August. Thereafter the application shall be placed before a judge within 24 hours for determination.
  3. Costs reserved.

Reasons

(1) The Claimant is an asylum seeker. There is evidence that naming the Claimant will increase the risk he would face if returned to his country of origin. The present application relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) The claim for urgent interim relief is essentially articulated by reference to the claimant’s ongoing mental health problems exacerbated, it is said, by detention. The relief sought is an order for his release.
(3) Notwithstanding this I note that the following do not appear to be in the papers before me:
a) Dr. Michael Shortt’s Independent Psychiatric and Scarring Report (dated 16 June 2025, finalised 17 July 2025): This report, by a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, is crucial to the Claimant’s case, concluding that his scarring patterns are highly consistent with his description of ritualistic cutting and forced initiation. It also provides diagnoses of Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalised Anxiety Disorder, directly linking his mental health conditions to his traumatic experiences. Despite being heavily relied upon and mentioned multiple times, it is not listed in the bundle index nor contained within the bundle.
b) The Claimant’s Fresh Asylum Claim (lodged 29 July 2025, under Paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules): The Claimant lodged this fresh claim, supported by Dr. Shortt’s report, and it remains outstanding, serving as a barrier to his removal. It is listed as “Fresh Claim Under Para 353 dated 29 July 2025” under supporting evidence in the Pre-Action Protocol Letter, but it is not itemised in the main bundle index or contained in the bundle.
c) The Rule 35(3) Assessment Report (dated 13 August 2025): This report, dated 13 August 2025, noted that the Claimant was suffering from “significant mental distress” and that ongoing detention would have an “adverse effect on his mental health”. The Defendant acknowledged this report on 15 August 2025. Given its importance in establishing the Claimant’s vulnerability and the harm caused by detention, it is repeatedly referenced but not explicitly listed in the bundle index or contained in the bundle nor is the Defendant’s acknowledgment of 15 August.
d) The Claimant’s Witness Statement: This document, described as a “detailed witness statement setting out his claim,” supports the fresh asylum claim. It is also listed under “Supporting Evidence” in the Pre-Action Protocol Letter, but it is not included in the main bundle index.
e) Dr. Michael Shortt’s Resume: This document is listed as supporting evidence in the Pre-Action Protocol Letter but is not listed in the main bundle index.
(4) The Defendant’s response says, contrary to the arguments advanced by the Claimant, that “your client is a person in respect of whom a removal decision has been taken and there is a reasonable prospect of his relocation from the United Kingdom taking place in a reasonable period of time; the Secretary of State therefore considers that your client’s detention is justified, necessary and proportionate to enforce the immigration decision to remove him, in the event that no barriers remain.”
(5) Given the assertion that the Claimant will be removed within a reasonable period of time and the fact that a bail application was made at the end of July but, it appears, has not been determined, I consider that the appropriate course is to give the Defendant an opportunity to respond to the application for interim relief and the Claimant, if so advised, to provide the documents referred to above.