January 8, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002413

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 January 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Swift

Between:

The King
on the application of
DFD

-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

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Swift

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;

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as DFD.

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 his identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
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.

Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.
The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £4,964.67.
Further provision as to costs:

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 2 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 2 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) 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 specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(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.

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

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a 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 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 specified.

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

Reasons

The Claimant challenges a decision made on 28 March 2024 refusing his application for a review of a decision made in November 2022 which had refused his application made under the ARAP scheme in 2021. The claim was commenced on 23 July 2025.
Ground 1 is that no sufficient reasons were given for the decision. Ground 2 is that the decision rested on an incorrect factual conclusion – that the claimant had not worked for a UK government department in Afghanistan. Both Grounds 1 and 2 have been brought out of time, and there is no sufficient reason to extend time to allow these grounds to be pursued. In any event, a statement of the reasons relied on when the March 2024 decision was made has now been provided. Those reasons are sufficient. In the premises, no purpose would be served by pursuing Ground 1 of the challenge. Further, so far as concerns Ground 2, it is apparent that the decision accepted that the Claimant had worked as a cleaner between 2011 and 2013, but concluded (for legally permissible reasons) that that work did not put him at risk of harm.
Grounds 3 and 4 arise from information made public in July 2025 – that the Claimant’s name had been included in the Afghan data breach information. These grounds are not therefore, affected by the out of time issue. The claim that is made is to the effect that because the Claimant’s name was included in the data breach information, the Defendant is subject to a positive obligation under ECHR article 8 to assist the Claimant to leave Afghanistan. (Although Ground 4 is pleaded by reference to the GDPR, the point made is still article 8 claim – the pleading contends that the failure to act in accordance with the requirements of the GDPR gave rise to an interference with the Claimant’s article 8 rights.)
Even if (for sake of argument), the Defendant’s reliance on ECHR article 1 is disregarded, the article 8 claim is unarguable. Positive obligations arise only rarely. In the circumstances of this case, given: (a) the original assessment (which I accept) that the Claimant’s work as a cleaner between 2011 and 2013 did not give rise to significant risk to his safety; and (b) the further assessment (that I also accept) that inclusion in the data breach set of information was unlikely to increase the risk faced by someone such as the Claimant, there is no sufficient evidence to support (even arguably) the existence of the positive obligation the Claimant contends for.

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.

Date: 5 January 2026