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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-004144

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 April 2026

Before:

David Elvin KC,
Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

GLF

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s summary grounds.

ORDER BY DAVID ELVIN KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

  1. Applicant for urgent consideration granted.
  2. Application for anonymity granted. Claimant to be referred to as “GLF”. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to the Claimant’s identification.
  3. In the event that an application for renewal is made the Claimant’s solicitors shall file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 2 above.
  4. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 2 above.
  5. Permission for extension of time to file Reply dated 9 January 2026 granted.
  6. Application to amend the Statement of Facts and Grounds is refused.
  7. Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  8. Application for interim relief is refused.
  9. The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,220.
  10. Further provision as to costs:

    (a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

    (i) paragraph 2 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

    (ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

    (b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 2 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

    (c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

    (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:
    • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    • the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
    • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

      (d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

      (i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:
    • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
    • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

      (ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

      (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:
    • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing.
  11. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

    (a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 1.5 hours, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

    (b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

    (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

    (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

    (iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

    (iv) this Order;

    (v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

    (vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

    (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

    (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

    (i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

    (ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

    (iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

    (e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

    (f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

Reasons

  1. I have considered the applications for urgent consideration, anonymity and for permission to file a reply out of time all of which I have granted.
  2. I consider the substantive claim to be unarguable. It turns primarily on the contentions that the Defendant’s Negative Reasonable Grounds Decision dated 16.9.25 (“NRGD”) and reconsideration decision dated 7.11.25 affirming the NRGD (“RD”)

    (a) reached an irrational conclusion on the Defendant’s rejection of the claim based on the lack of credibility of the Claimant’s account of her circumstances including failure to consider all the material provided and issues caused by the lack of interpretation

    (b) did not properly consider and/or apply the Defendant’s Modern Slavery statutory guidance (v. 4.4)

    (c) was procedurally unfair since the Defendant did not allow the Claimant to provide further evidence of clarification before her view of the claim become “unduly fixed’ and this was not overcome by the rD.

    (3) It appears to me from the NRGD and RD that the Defendant considered at some length –

    (a) The various inconsistencies and contradictions in the Claimant’s account;

    (b) Considered whether there might be reasonable explanations for the contradictions and inconsistencies and considered other sources of information such as the First Responder, the emotional upset caused by various family deaths and possible pregnancy, and rejected the contention that they did provide a reasonable explanation;

    (c) Whether the account as a whole demonstrated that the Claimant met the required elements of modern slavery, which it was considered it did not;

    (d) A number of sources of evidence and information, listed in the NRGD and RD including the additional information provided for the purposes of reconsideration by Wilsons Solicitors on 5.11.25 as well as the additional submissions made in that letter by Wilson.

    (e) The contention that the interview conducted was inadequate and without suitable interpretation were rejected in the RD –

    “It is noted during your client’s Border Forced Interview dated 29/03/2023, Asylum Screening Interview dated 23/10/2024, Detention Induction Record dated 13/09/2025 and NRM Referral dated 09/09/205 a Portuguese interpreter was present to translate their account. It is noted during each of these interviews your client indicated they understood the questions and raised no concerns with regards to translation issues. Whilst it is acknowledged there is no mention of an interpreter on the Witness Statements provided on behalf of your client on 03/09/2025 and 05/09/2025, your client signed the Statement of Truth. Regardless of the latter, a substantial number of credibility points were identified within your client’s accounts during interviews when an interpreter was present. Therefore is it rejected your client’s credibility is negatively affected because of translation issues or inadequate legal advice.
    The Witness Statement dated 30/10/2025 has been reviewed and whilst it is understood a Portuguese interpreter was present, translating for your client, the credibility concerns raised within the decision made on 16/09/2025 remain outstanding.”

    (f) Whilst it was accepted that the Claimant had “added levels of vulnerability as recognised within the Hibiscus Letter dated 27/10/2025” there was still no explanation for the numerous inconsistencies in the Claimant’s accounts. This assessment was not unreasonable even with anxious scrutiny.

    (g) It appears that this properly took account of the guidance on credibility in Modern Slavery at §§14.13-14.14 and the need to consider other sources of information (e.g. from the FR) and the possibility of there being valid reasons for the inconsistencies having regard to the guidance that it is “also reasonable to assume that a potential victim who has experienced an event will be able to recount the central elements in a broadly consistent manner. A potential victim’s inability to remain consistent throughout their written and oral accounts of past and current events may lead the relevant competent authority to disbelieve their claim”. In view of the significant number of contradictions and inconsistencies identified in the NRGD with regard to many key facts, which were reviewed in the RD, it is not reasonably arguable that the Defendant reached an irrational conclusion or failed to consider material considerations.

    (h) For the reasons already set out, ground 2 is also unsustainable since it is plain that the Secretary of State had regard to and applied the Modern Slavery guidance. The Claimant’s real complaint is that the Defendant did not consider in the circumstances that there were reasonable grounds and the challenge is to the reasonable judgment of the Defendant.

    (i) In the circumstances, including the submissions in the reconsideration request of 5.11.25, Ground 3 is not sustainable either. There is no entitlement for claimant to be permitted on a continuing basis to supplement and clarify information, especially since there was such an opportunity at reconsideration which was taken up. Indeed, Wilsons’ letter of 5.11.25 stated that “26. Whilst we maintain that the above submissions, and enclosed evidence, sufficiently addresses the credibility points and meet the Reasonable Grounds threshold, our client is due to be assessed by Medical Justice on 6/11/2025. The doctor will provide their professional opinion regarding our client’s presentation and the credibility points.” That doctor’s opinion was subsequently provided and considered by the Defendant in the RD.

    (j) It follows that I refuse the application for interim relief and the application for permission to amend which relates to the failure to provide MSVCC which relates to a recent decision (26.3.26) and not to the earlier decisions for which permission is sought.

Requests to reconsider permission at a hearing pursuant to CPR 54.12

Where the Claimant wishes to request reconsideration of the refusal of permission at a hearing:

(a) The request must be made by completing and filing Form 86B within 7 days after the date of service of this Order.

(b) A fee is payable on filing Form 86B. Details of the current fees are at https://www.gov.uk/court-fees-what-they-are. The form to make an application for remission of a court fee can be obtained at https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees.

(c) If the Claimant does not pay the fee or submit a certified application for fee remission, paragraph 1 of this Order is final.