GGJ -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2025-LON-002782
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
12 March 2026
BEFORE;
ANDREW BURNS KC
BETWEEN:
THE KING on the application of
GGJ
-v-
HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Order
Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply and the Defendant’s application for an extension of time dated 16 September 2025 and the Claimant’s application dated 12 November 2025 to adduce expert evidence
ORDER BY ANDREW BURNS KC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
- Expert Evidence: By consent the Claimant is granted permission to rely on the expert report of Dr Maximilian Wood dated 4 November 2025.
- Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on both grounds.
- Anonymity:
The application for anonymity is granted, and pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and CPR rule 5.4C-5.4D and Rule 39.2, with effect from the date of this order and until further order:
(a) There shall be substituted for all purposes in this case, in place of references to the Claimant’s name, reference to GGJ.
(b) There shall 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) Any application for permission to inspect or obtain a non-anonymised version of a document must be made on notice to the Claimant and in accordance with CPR r.5.4C(6). - Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge the anonymity order must make an application to the Court, served on each party.
- Case Management Directions: The Claim is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal for case management directions and trial.
- Costs reserved except for costs on the application for extension of time which shall be costs in the case.
OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS
(1) Ground 1 is arguable that the Claimant is 18 years old and was born on 18 June 2007. The photo of the CRC is far from conclusive but may provide some evidence of his age and is suggested to be authentic by expert evidence from Mr Verney. The witness statements of Ms Carrera, Ms Bowman, Ms Goztas and Ms Navaro are of some evidential value as they have experience of working with young people. The evidence of Mr Petty of Care4Calais is that he appears “very young” and the support worker gives evidence. None of these are expert or reliable by themselves but taken together at their highest provide at least some evidence to cross the low permission threshold.
(2) Ground 2: age assessment unlawful, unfair and unreasonable: failure to take into account relevant considerations. This is arguable. It is arguable that the statements were not taken into account as they were not mentioned at all and Mr Verney’s evidence about Sudanese names and the importance of birthdays was arguably not taken into account. It is arguable that the lack of a Sudanese Arabic interpreter affected the fairness of the interview and the Defendant’s assessment.
(3) Anonymity. The Claimant seeks an anonymity order pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) as an young person in an asylum claim. Anonymity is necessary to protect the Claimant’s safety and well-being. Any derogation from, or restriction upon, open justice is exceptional and must be based on strict necessity. The derogation or restriction must be shown by clear and cogent evidence to fulfil a legitimate aim and to be both necessary and proportionate. I accept that anonymity would prevent risks for Claimant in Sudan.
(4) It is appropriate for the claim to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal who have established procedures and experience in assessing the question of age. I have extended time and given permission for expert evidence (which orders are made by consent of the parties).