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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004104

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

19 November 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Brunner

Between:

The King
on the application of
DBL

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE BRUNNER

  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 DBL

(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. Prohibitory injunction:

(a) The Defendant must not remove the Applicant from the jurisdiction until the application for permission to apply for judicial review is determined.

(b) Any application to vary or discharge paragraph (a) above must be made on notice to the Claimant.

THIS IS A PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. 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

3. Costs reserved.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: The claimant alleges that he is a victim of trafficking, and there is some evidence that naming the claimant will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Prohibitory injunction: There are prima facie serious issues to be tried in this case. At this stage, in the absence of any response from the Defendant, the Claimant’s documentation discloses such issues relating to (i) the Defendant’s refusal to accept further submissions on 15 October 2025 as a fresh claim for international protection, and (ii) the Defendant’s decision of 29 October refusing to find reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant is a victim of trafficking, including an issue as to whether adequate consideration was given to medical evidence in the context of delayed disclosure. The balance of convenience lies in the maintenance of the status quo; there is medical evidence that the Claimant is suffering from mental health issues and evidence from the Claimant that he would be at risk if returned.

Signed: MRS JUSTICE BRUNNER
Date: 19.11.25