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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/4170/2022

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

25 November 2022

Philip Mott KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

The King on the application of GD
Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant


  1. The Claimant is granted anonymity pursuant to CPR 39(3)(c) and shall be referred to as “GD” in these proceedings.
  2. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is to be listed before a judge of the Administrative Court on the first available date, and in any event not later than 24 December 2022, with a time estimate of 2 hours.
  3. Any further evidence on the issue of interim relief is to be filed and served within 7 days of the sealing of this order.
  4. Costs reserved.


  1. The Defendant agreed in principle on 26 October 2022 that the Claimant should be released from detention because of his mental health. Yet he is still in detention.
  2. Insofar as the delay is in finding suitable accommodation, approved by the National Probation Service, it is unacceptable. It should be possible to source at least temporary accommodation within 14 days of the decision to release.
  3. The remaining issue, which warrants an oral hearing, is whether electronic tagging is justified. There is an independent medical opinion which says the Claimant’s mental health will be adversely affected by tagging, as he suffers from psychotic depression and a tag will exacerbate his psychosis.
  4. The Defendant expresses understandable alarm about this because the Claimant has a number of previous convictions and has failed to report in the past or to cooperate with the Emergency Travel Document process. It is also alleged (but denied by the Claimant) that he has given false identity details.
  5. Yet at present there is no other medical opinion, either from an examination of the Claimant or from a review of his records, which puts forward a different view about the risks to the Claimant’s mental health if he is tagged. It is not enough for the Defendant merely to assert that the medical evidence supplied by the Claimant is not sufficient to overturn the presumption of electronic monitoring.
  6. It is the Defendant’s responsibility to provide the court with evidence if there are risks to the public from releasing the Claimant without electronic monitoring, and to justify her opposition.
  7. I therefore order an oral hearing of the interim relief application at the earliest opportunity.