GLQ -v- Home Secretary (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000305

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

16 March 2026

Before:

Mrs Justice Lieven

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GLQ

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission for judicial review and anonymity, and application by the Defendant for a stay of the proceedings

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN

  1. Anonymity:
    a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as GLQ.
    b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must 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) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. The application for judicial review, including the question of permission, to be stayed until 21 days after the final determination of any appeal in R (ABW) v SSHD .
  3. The Defendant to have an extension of time to lodge the Acknowledgement of Service until 21  days after the final determination of ABW.

REASONS

  1. Anonymity: the facts of the case are sensitive and the D does not resist anonymisation.
  2. The Stay – the D seeks a stay behind ABW on the grounds that this case raises a number of overlapping issues, and the D is seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in ABW.
  3. Although I accept that there are some differences between the two cases, and the grounds in the present case go further than ABW it is clear that a final decision on ABW will be of very great relevance in the present case. I note that the C’s Grounds of Claim themselves rely heavily on Morris J’s decision in ABW, so the attempt to argue that the two cases are largely distinguishable is highly questionable. It therefore is in accordance with the overriding objective that this matter be stayed behind ABW.
  4. There may be some detriment to D in his claim not being determined at this stage, but in the light of the background facts I do not consider that such detriment outweighs the disbenefits of proceeding with this claim until the Court of Appeal has decided whether to grant permission and if so the outcome of ABW. The period in question is not indefinite but rather depends on the timing of the Court of Appeal’s determinations.
  5. There is no sensible basis for considering permission before such a stay is granted. Permission will to some extent at least turn on the outcome in ABW.
  6. Extension of time- in the circumstances it accords with the overriding objective to allow the D an extension of time for the AoS.