Claim number: CO/4486/2022
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
22 March 2023
Mr David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge:
The King on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On an application by the Claimant
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER by Mr David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge:
- The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted.
- The Claimant has permission to rely on his amended grounds dated 13 February 2023.
- The Defendant has until 14 April 2023 to consider the further representations set out in the Claimant’s letter dated 3 March 2023 and to reconsider, if so advised, its decision to fit him with an electronic monitoring device.
- In the event that the Defendant maintains the decision and the Claimant continues to be subject to an electronic monitoring device the Claimant has 3 weeks from receipt of the decision to file and serve re-amended grounds if so advised.
- In the event that the Claimant maintains the challenge, the Defendant has 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the re-amended grounds to file and serve an amended Summary Grounds of Defence dealing with both the amended grounds of 13 February 2023 and the re-amended grounds.
- The claim for judicial review is stayed until receipt of the amended Summary Grounds of Defence.
- Costs reserved
- The Claimant’s application for anonymity is not opposed. Given his potential vulnerability as a victim of trafficking, anonymity is justified under CPR 39.2. The Claimant’s identity shall not be disclosed. He shall be referred to as “GH”.
- The Claimant originally challenged (i) the delay in being provided with adequate accommodation, on release; (ii) his detention; (iii) the Defendant’s approach to his needs as a victim of modern slavery; and (iv) the decision to subject him to electronic monitoring.
- The Claimant was subsequently on 14 December 2022 released from detention.
- The Defendant contended, in her Acknowledgment of Service, that the decision to maintain electronic monitoring was justified and lawful.
- The Claimant wishes to amend his claim to reflect the updated position. His position is that the claim should be stayed for a fairly brief period in order for further representations to be made about electronic monitoring in particular, for the Defendant to reconsider her position on that issue, and for the pleadings to be amended if necessary.
- The Defendant contends that the Claimant should make further representations about electronic monitoring outside of the litigation if so advised, but that it is unnecessary for the pleadings to be amended or for there to be a “rolling JR” which would not be consistent with the overriding objective; and that any other outstanding issues raised by the claim should now be transferred to the County Court.
- I consider that the Claimant’s approach is preferable. The question as to whether electronic monitoring was lawful was squarely raised as an issue in the original claim. It was framed not only as a reasonableness challenge but also as action which was said to be contrary to Article 8 (or Article 4) ECHR. The Defendant should have the opportunity of reconsidering its position based on the latest representations, and the Court should then decide how to proceed based on the updated position.
- The papers in this case are voluminous. I do not consider it necessary to make any direction about this but it would probably be helpful, if this case is to progress to a decision on permission, for the Claimant to file a core bundle of documents along with a list of essential reading (both agreed if possible).