DRU -v- Secretary of State for the Home Office (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003962

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

18 November 2025

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Mansfield

Between:

The King
on the application of
DRU

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Office

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant and Interested Party

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Mansfield:

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Until further order of the Court, under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to 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 “DRU”.

(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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;

(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. Abridgement of time and expedition:

(a) The Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) must be filed and served by 4pm on 25 November 2025.

(b) The Claimant may file and serve a Reply to the Acknowledgement of Service by 4pm on 27 November 2025.

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for consideration of permission to apply for judicial review as soon as possible thereafter.

  1. Timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:

(a) The Defendant may file and serve any response to the application for interim relief/directions by 4pm on 25 November 2025.

(b) The Claimant may file and serve a reply to that response by 4pm on 27 November 2025.

(c) The papers are to be referred to a judge or deputy judge for a decision whether to grant interim relief as soon as possible thereafter.

REASONS

Anonymity:

1. I have made an order for anonymity in respect of the Claimant until this matter is considered further by the Court. I bear in mind the importance of the principle of open justice, and the general rule that the names of the parties are included in orders of the court. However, there is some evidence, on behalf of the Claimant, that she is a victim of trafficking, that her traffickers are at large and that she has a fear of violent retaliation from them. I am satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to make the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1, on a time limited basis until the Court considers the interim relief application further on paper.

    Abridgement of time and timetable for submissions and paper decision on interim relief:

    2. By section 5 of the UTIAC-1 the Claimant identifies 5 numbered decisions under review, but in essence she challenges (1) the refusal of her asylum claim (decision 30 July 2025); (2) her alleged unlawful detention, and disregard of her medical condition in detention; (3) the failure to conduct an effective investigation under her reported exploitation and sexual coercion.

    3. The Court does not have a response from the Defendant, and it is unclear whether the claim, or the pre-action letters attached to it have been served. I note in particular:

    a. 5.1.2 complains that the asylum claim was refused without a full decision letter and without proper assessment of the evidence provided. However, the papers include the Defendant’s decision letter dated 30 July 2025, which appears to be full and contains an evaluation of evidence provided following a number of interviews.

    b. The status of the Claimant’s NRM referral is unclear. First, 5.1.3 complains of a failure to conduct an effective investigation into reports of exploitation. Section 5 further states that a final decision from the NRM is expected within the next few months. Second, the Claimant’s pre-action protocol letter states that the NRM has recognized the Claimant as a victim of exploitation and trafficking (para 2(2)). Third, the papers include a letter dated 27 October 2025 to the NRM seeking annulment of its previous decision, suggesting that there had been a decision adverse to the Claimant. All of these are inconsistent with each other. The HO Decision dated 30 July 2024 suggests at paragraph 6 that there was a positive conclusive grounds decision on 2 December 2024, but I have not seen such a decision, and it is inconsistent with the 27 October 2025 letter to the NRM.

    4. The potentially urgent matter is the Claimant’s ongoing immigration detention. As to that, the Claimant gives no explanation as to how she came to be in detention, and it is not clear when she was detained – possibly 24 October 2025. The Claimant was previously on immigration bail and the decision letter of 30 July 2025 makes clear that she continued to be on immigration bail. An urgent explanation as to the reasons for the current detention is required from the Defendant.

    5. I am not persuaded that interim relief, in the form of a mandatory order requiring release of the Claimant, is just. To order release at this stage would effectively be to determine the substantive application for judicial review of her detention in the Claimant’s favour at an early stage. Absent explanation of the circumstances from both Claimant and Defendant it is not possible to evaluate whether there is a serious issue to be tried. I am not persuaded that the balance of convenience would favour urgent release before the Court can consider the application in the light of further information. While the Claimant has referred to her physical and mental health (a) her application is not supported by any medical evidence and (b) even taking her medical position on its face, the risk to her health does not appear to be so serious to warrant an urgent mandatory injunction without a reasonable opportunity for the Defendant to respond and for the circumstances to be clarified.

    6. Accordingly, I have given directions for an expedited AOS and a tight timetable for response to the application for interim relief, and the application can then be considered again on the papers.

    Signed: Mr Justice Mansfield
    Dated: 18 November 2025