June 16, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000495

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

12 June 2026

Before:

HHJ Marquand
(sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Between:

The King
on the application of
ET
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

ORDER BY HHJ Marquand (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

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 UTIAC order dated 2 January 2026 is varied so the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ET and her children as GRY and GTA.

(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.

(i) If not already completed, 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.

Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Injunction: The injunction in the order dated 2 January 2026 of the UTIAC is to remain in force until 14 days after service of this order, unless the Claimant applies for reconsideration of permission at a hearing pursuant to CPR 54.12 in which case it shall remain in force until conclusion of these judicial review proceedings or until further order.
Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,444.
Further provision as to costs:

(a) 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 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(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.

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

(i) Paragraph 4 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any 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 4 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 (together with the request for reconsideration) 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 assessed.

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

the other party may, within 7 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;
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.

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 30 minutes, 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.

REASONS

(1) The claimant is an Albanian and entered the UK on 30 August 2022. She claimed asylum on 25 January 2023 and her claim was initially refused but then reconsidered. On 1 August 2024 her claim was refused and certified under section 94. The claimant’s asylum claim was on the basis that having separated from her husband she was awarded custody of the children and went to live with her father. However, the claimant’s brother and his wife would argue with the claimant and shout at her and the children. The claimant made a further application on 29 March 2025, which was refused as being invalid. Further submissions were made on 8 December 2025 raising additional points. The claimant alleged that she had not had any contact with a husband since the end of 2018, whilst in Greece she had been sexually exploited and kept in a locked room and forced to see 5 to 6 clients per night. She fled back to Albania but her brother and his wife did not want to stay in the house. She moved out with her children and worked in a restaurant cleaning dishes but was found in Albania in 2021 and forced work again in prostitution. In August 2022 she was told that her daughter would become a “good worker”. The claimant provided a witness statement, psychological report dated 3 December 2025, psychiatric report dated 14 August 2024, a letter from platform dated 19 June 2024, a referral to the Helen Bamber foundation, copies of medication and a letter from a learning community regarding the claimant’s son. A referral was made to the NRM on 10 November 2025 and an initial decision was withdrawn and retaken on 31 December 2025. This was a negative reasonable grounds decision. On 18 December 2025 the defendant refused the “fresh grounds” submissions. The 1st ground challenges the certification of the asylum claim. The defendant correctly directed herself to relevant materials and took into account the psychology and psychiatric reports. My conclusion is that there is no realistic argument to conclude that the fresh claim has a realistic prospect of success. The 2nd ground challenges the procedural fairness of the NMR reasonable grounds decision. The 3rd ground is unreasonable/irrational findings on credibility. Leaving the problems with the interview aside, there were a number of significantly different versions of events available to the decision maker. It is highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different. The conclusion reached was plainly one that was open to the defendant cannot be arguably categorised as one that no reasonable decision-maker acting reasonably could have reached. Ground 4 alleges a misapplication of the standard of proof by the defendant. Faced with the various accounts given by the claimant even bearing in mind the threshold as the low one I do not see how rejection of the claimant’s accounts means that the wrong threshold was applied. This is a disagreement with the decision. For the above reasons I refuse permission for judicial review on all grounds: there is no arguable ground that has a realistic prospect of success.

(2) I have ordered anonymity given the subject matter and the involvement of children. There is a reasonable expectation of privacy and the potential, given the asylum claim there is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. This extends the anonymity from UTIAC order to the children. I have also extended the injunction as the claimant has the right to an oral renewal hearing. I award the costs claimed by the Defendant as the successful party.

Signed: HHJ Marquand

Date: 12 June 2026