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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/3904/2022

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

3 November 2022

Hugh Southey KC

The King on the application of DMZ
Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief and anonymity
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

Order by Hugh Southey KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

  1. The Claimant’s application for an anonymity order is granted pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s general case management powers in CPR 3.1(2).
  2. There be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the Claimant by name whether orally or in writing, references to “DMZ”.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4(c), a person not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the statement of case, judgment or order of the court records, only if such statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised.
  4. This matter to be listed for a 2 hour hearing to determine interim relief on 9 November 2022.
  5. The Defendant to provide written submissions and any evidence relied upon responding to the application for interim relief by 4pm on 7 November 2022.
  6. The Claimant to provide written submissions in response by 4pm on 8 November 2022.


  1. This application for judicial review argues that there has been an unlawful failure to provide adequate accommodation for the Claimant and his family under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It appears from the papers I have seen that the Secretary of State accepts that there is a duty to reaccommodate the Claimant and his family. However, there is a dispute about the features of the accommodation required.
  2. The Secretary of State has had no opportunity to respond to this claim. That is significant. The extent to which delay in providing accommodation is unlawful depends upon all of the circumstances (R (on the application of Humnyntskyi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 1912 (Admin) at [177]). That makes it difficult for me to assess the strength of the claim on the material available to me.
  3. It appears to me that material submitted by the Claimant suggests significance urgency. However, I am not convinced that the claim is so urgent that the Secretary should be denied the opportunity to respond to the application for interim relief.
  4. In light of the matters above, I have concluded that a hearing should be heard to determine the application for interim. The Secretary of State will then be in a position to file a response to the application.
  5. The Claimant seeks an anonymity order in view of the claim revealing sensitive personal information about him and his children. On the material before me, it appears that anonymity is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of the Claimant and his family. The Claimant and his family appear to be vulnerable and there are good reasons why their vulnerabilities should not be made public. This factor is particularly important in the context of the children. This order can be reviewed in light of either further material being served on the court or an application by the media.