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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/2553/2023

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

9 November 2023


David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


The King on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department


Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant
ORDER by David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The Claimant’s application for permission to apply for judicial review and for interim relief are refused.
  2. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £1754.
  3. The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount of costs that the Claimant shall pay shall be determined on an application by the Defendant under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Claimant to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.
  4. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) the Claimant’s identity, address, and other information which could lead to his identification must not be disclosed. The Claimant’s name must not be published, and the Claimant shall instead be referred to as “ETX”.
  5. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Order. If a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.
  6. Any application to set aside the anonymity provisions at paragraphs 4 or 5 of this Order shall be made on at least 3 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitors.


  1. As to Ground 1: I do not consider that the Defendant’s decision not to grant the Claimant’s request to re-enter the main MSVCC support structure was arguably unlawful. The Claimant is registered with a GP and has access to the NHS and to financial support from the Defendant. He has been offered access to Reach-In support, which covers assistance with accessing medical as well as other support. I see no arguable basis upon the Court can conclude that it was unlawful or irrational for the Defendant to consider that Reach-In support would be adequate in the circumstances.
  2. As to Ground 2: I do not consider it arguable that the Defendant’s Guidance is unlawful. It is not unlawful, in particular, for the Guidance to fail to provide that a person must have access to MSVCC support having left the NRM, even where that support is not considered to be required in a particular case because, for example, it is unnecessary, or the necessary support is likely to be available via Reach-In or other services.
  3. I do not consider that, in the circumstances, there is a serious issue to be tried. I refuse the application for interim relief.
  4. I have granted the anonymity application. I note that the Defendant has not made submissions about anonymity. If the application for permission is renewed, this issue may need to be reviewed in light of the open justice principle. The justification for the application at SFG para 7 may well be sufficient, but it may be necessary to explore it in a little more detail.