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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/1883/2023

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

24 May 2023

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Baker

Between:

The King on the application of
FN

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12) and on the applications for anonymity, interim relief and expedition
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Andrew Baker

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), and subject to any further order herein, the Claimant is granted anonymity in respect of these proceedings. His identity must not be disclosed and he shall be referred to as “FN” in the proceedings.
  2. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
  3. The proceedings are expedited and the following directions shall apply, subject to paragraph 4 below:-
    3.1) the Defendant shall file and serve Detailed Grounds of Defence, together with any evidence on which she wishes to rely in respect of either the application for interim relief or the claim, by 4pm on Friday 2 June 2023, such Detailed Grounds to include a full and detailed account of all steps taken up to the date thereof, by or on behalf of the Defendant, to arrange accommodation for the Claimant;
    3.2) the application for interim relief shall be listed to be heard, time estimate 1½ hours, during the week commencing 12 June 2023, and for that hearing:
    3.2.1) the Claimant shall file and serve a skeleton argument, limited to 10 pages (minimum 12-point font size, minimum line spacing 1.5) by 4pm on Wednesday 7 June 2023;
    3.2.2) the Defendant shall file and serve a skeleton argument, limited to 10 pages (minimum 12-point font size, minimum line spacing 1.5) by 12 noon on Friday 9 June 2023;
    3.3) subject to paragraph 3.4 below, the hearing of the claim shall be listed to be heard, time estimate 3-4 hours plus 3 hours’ prereading time for the judge, in July 2023, and for that hearing:
    3.3.1) the Claimant may (if so advised) file and serve a Reply to the Detailed Grounds of Defence, together with any evidence in reply on which he wishes to rely in respect of the claim, by 4pm on Friday 23 June 2023;
    3.3.2) the Claimant shall file and serve a skeleton argument, limited to 20 pages (minimum 12-point font size, minimum line spacing 1.5) by 4 pm on Friday 23 June 2023;
    3.3.3) the Defendant shall file and serve a skeleton argument, limited to 20 pages (minimum 12-point font size, minimum line spacing 1.5) by 4 pm on Wednesday 28 June 2023;
    3.4) if the Claimant is released from immigration detention, whether pursuant to interim relief granted at the hearing listed pursuant to paragraph 3.2 above or otherwise, by 4pm on Friday 30 June 2023, the hearing listed pursuant to paragraph 3.3 above shall be vacated and the parties shall submit a joint application to the court, by solicitors’ letter, on or before Friday 14 July 2023 for revised directions for the final disposal of the claim, such
    directions having been agreed (subject to the court) so far as possible prior to the submission of the application.
  4. The directions set out in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4 above having been made without hearing from the Defendant, she may apply (if so advised) for them to be reconsidered or varied, provided any such application is made within 7 days of service of this Order on her.
  5. The parties shall agree the contents of any hearing bundle(s) (including any authorities bundle(s)) and file any such bundle with the Court not later than 9.30am on the working day prior to the hearing in question.
    An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions
    of the hearing bundle.
  6. Costs in the claim.

Observations

  1. I consider that the pre-action correspondence provided the Defendant with a sufficient opportunity to indicate the nature of any proposed defence to this claim that it is possible and fair to consider immediately the question of permission to apply for judicial review. Having taken careful note of the Defendant’s pre-action response, in my judgment the Claimant’s Grounds set out a strongly arguable claim for a judicial review of his continuing detention (and the associated failure by the Defendant to arrange accommodation for him so that he can meet the conditions of the bail he was been granted by the First Tier Tribunal some four weeks ago).
  2. The circumstance of continuing detention that is well arguably unlawful itself creates urgency. The medical reports on the Claimant’s condition referred to in the Claimant’s Grounds reinforce that urgency.
  3. The just disposal of this claim requires, in my view, that (a) the application for interim relief be considered extremely promptly, and (b) the substantive hearing be expedited if the Claimant’s release from detention is not achieved (through the interim relief application or otherwise) within the next month. The case management directions I have set out above seek to achieve that end.