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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-004569

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

17 December 2025

Before:

Mr Justice Cotter

Between:

The King on the application of
FKK

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the bundle and skeleton argument filed on behalf of the Defendant 

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE COTTER

  1. 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 Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as FKK.
    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 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.
  2. Interim relief: The application for interim relief is refused.
  3. Abridgement of time and expedition: The papers are to be referred to a High Court Judge as soon as possible after the time for service of a Reply has expired.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity:
    The Claimant claims to be a victim of trafficking and is an asylum seeker. Naming him could put him at risk if he is returned to his country of origin. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
  2. Interim relief:
    I proceed on the basis that there is a serious issue to be tried (the Defendant does not content otherwise for the purposes of the consideration of interim relief). 
  3. The Balance of convenience is against the grant of interim relief in circumstances where;
    a) France has agreed to the transfer
    b) France is a signatory to the refugee convention and the ECHR and the presumptions under paragraph 3(1A) and 3(2) of schedule 3 apply
    c) There is no cogent evidence that the Claimant would face a real risk of breach of the protections afforded by Article 3 in France which provides healthcare coverage including mental health support and support (including accommodation and financial support) for asylum seekers
    d) The medical treatment recommended by Dr Yusuff in his report of 10th December 20205 in respect of PTSD and depressive disorder (from which he “may benefit”)   is  available in France. As set out in the report at paragraph 7.2 the Claimant has no ongoing thoughts of suicide or self-harm and his  symptoms are principally exacerbated by the thought of a return County drivenee e.g. paragraph 10.1-2, 11.3); although he experiences fear and distress at the thought of being removed to any European County driven by having been unsupported and uniformed about asylum procedures in France; which may be remedied under the return arrangements . Dr Yusuff states that “without adequate mental health support and assurance of protection” relocation could significantly worsen prognosis; so the converse should also be the case.
    e) The Claimant will not be left destitute. France which provides support (including accommodation and financial support) for asylum seekers (as described in the statement of Hannah Scarr at paragraphs 6-9)
    f) There are procedures in France for the identification and support of victims of trafficking as explained with the statement of Lucy Vaughan paragraphs 7 – 15 (this is acknowledged by Mr McQuade at paragraphs 107-115; although he opines that the systems are “patchy”)
    g) There is a strong public interest in the Defendant being able to pursue her policy (in particular given the dangers arising from unsafe crossings and the need to provide a disincentive to those tempted to try them and to disrupt the workings of those who facilitate them). The intention is to return and readmit relevant individuals as swiftly as possible
    h) The Claimant will be able to continue his judicial review claim from France
    i) France can be relied on to return the claimant to the UK if the claim later succeeds and the court grants relief requiring it.