GA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case No: CO/2097/2022
In the High Courts of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
29 June 2022
Before:
Richard Clayton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Between:
The Queen on the application of
GA
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order and for an order that following the service of the Acknowledgement of Service that Court shall order that permission is granted within 7 days
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by Richard Clayton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
1. The Claimant has been granted anonymity in accordance with CPR 39.2(4).
2. Upon receipt of the Acknowledgement of Service the Court shall within 7 days consider the grant of permission.
3. The Defendant shall have liberty to apply to vary this Order upon giving the Claimant’s solicitors 48 hours written notice.
Reasons
1. In the circumstances of this case it is necessary to grant anonymity to the Claimant.
2. The order for permission to be considered within 7 days has been granted having regard to the following:
a. The Claimant applied for asylum on 29 September 2021 and resides with 8 children. He formerly lived in northwest London but was moved to unsuitable accommodation on 17 December 2021 in Croydon. His children remain at schools in northwest London.
b. As a result, the Claimant has experienced great difficulty in taking the children to different schools in northwest London which requires him to remain in northwest London all day. In particular, his youngest child has been diagnosed with autism. He cannot now attend a nursery in northwest London which was 4 minutes away from his former home in view of the fact that it now involves a 1 ½ hour journey whilst he also takes the other children to school. The child cannot now either attend a local nursery school or speech therapist due to long waiting lists which is adversely affecting his development.
c. On 21 March 2022 a pre-action protocol letter was sent challenging the Defendant’s failure to provide suitable alternative accommodation in northwest London. On 23 March 2022 the Defendant confirmed it would arrange suitable alternative accommodation within 1 hour of NW2 3RT.
d. Nevertheless, on 31 March 2022 the Claimant was sent a dispersal notice to Bristol.
e. On 13 April 2022 the Defendant wrote to the Claimant informing him that the dispersal would take place within 1 hour of his daughter’s school and that he would be collected from an address in Croydon. On 19 April 2022 the Claimant’s solicitors wrote stating that this was not the Claimant’s address.
f. On 4 May 2022 the Claimant received an incorrectly addressed further dispersal notice, outlining an address in Kent.
g. On 28 May 2022 the Claimant’s daughter received an eviction notice from the Defendant on the basis that she was no longer entitled to accommodation since she failed to explain why she did not travel.
h. On 1 June 2022 the Claimant was emailed by Migrant Help confirming that the eviction had been cancelled and that they would be contacted soon regarding dispersal.
i. Neither the Claimant or his solicitors have received any further communications.