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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/02019/2023
AC-2023-LON-001701

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

27 November 2023

Before:

Mr Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
GMM

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant
ORDER by Mr Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

  1. Pending further order, the Claimant shall hereafter be referred to in these proceedings as “GMM”, and pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the name or address of the Claimant or any particulars of the case likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant without the leave of the court. The Claim shall be referred to as R (GMM) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. No non-party is to have access to statements of case, evidence or interlocutory orders, or any other court documents which might lead to the identification of the Claimant.
  2. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,220.
  4. The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount of costs that the Claimant shall pay shall be determined on an application by the Defendant under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Claimant to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.

Reasons

Anonymity

1. Given the status of the Claimant as an asylum seeker, where the Claim turns on the health of the Claimant and where there is no public interest in identification, it is appropriate to make an anonymity order.

Permission

  1. The Defendant rightly points out that asylum seekers have no choice as to the locality in which they are accommodated.
  2. There is no basis to assert that the failure to relocate the Claimant to London amounts to a breach of Arts 3 and / or 8, ECHR and is thereby unlawful.
  3. Further, the Defendant’s guidance makes it clear that absent exceptional circumstances requests to be provided with accommodation in a specific location solely on the grounds that medical treatment is already being provided in the area should be refused.
  4. Given the nature of the evidence relied on by the Claimant and the advice of the Independent Medical Adviser and the contents of the Defendant’s policy documents the decision to house the Claimant in accommodation in Southampton was a decision reasonably open to the Defendant and was within the range of reasonable responses open to the Defendant.