GMN -v- National Crime Agency and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-000623

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

11 February 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GMN

-v-

(1) NATIONAL CRIME AGENCY
(2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(HO Ref: 1212-0099-0140-6535)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration, directions and interim relief;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a. The name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “GMN”.
  2. Pursuant to section 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.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    a. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    b. 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    c. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. The application has been given urgent consideration.
  5. The application for an oral hearing to be scheduled before 12 pm tomorrow (12 February 2026) is refused.
  6. The application for interim relief is refused.
  7. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  8. Costs reserved

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant claims he is an asylum seeker who is at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
  2. The Claimant is due to be extradited to Czechia tomorrow (12 February 2026) at 17.05. He seeks an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from extraditing him from the UK until the final determination of his asylum, humanitarian protection and human rights claims.
  3. There is no basis for challenging the extradition order made by the Westminster Magistrates Court on 8 April 2024. The Claimant is to be extradited at the request of the municipal court in Prague, Czechia to serve a sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment for an offence of embezzlement and to stand trial for other offences. Judge Sternberg considered at length at an oral hearing the various defences raised by the Claimant. He found that the Claimant has a number of physical and mental health conditions. He accepted evidence from the Czech authorities that they were able to provide him with appropriate medical treatment. He rejected the submission that extradition would be oppressive. The Judge conducted a careful balancing exercise under Article 8 ECHR, taking into account the public interest in extradition, and concluded that extradition was a proportionate interference in his and his family’s Article 8 rights.
  4. The Claimant was refused permission to appeal against the order for extradition by Johnson J. on the papers, on 22 January 2025. His decision does not disclose any arguable error. The Claimant did not pursue a renewed application for permission to appeal in Court (order of McGowan J. dated 28 March 2025). He is appeal rights exhausted.
  5. In my view, the Claimant’s challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision, dated 30 January 2026, to declare his asylum application inadmissible is not arguable and does not have a realistic prospect of success. As an EU Member State, Czechia is regarded as a safe country which respects fundamental rights and freedoms and therefore asylum claims from EU nationals are treated as inadmissible, save in exceptional circumstances (see section 80A of the Nationality Immigration & Asylum Act 2002). There is no right of appeal (subsection 80A(3)).
  6. The Secretary of State considered the Claimant’s detailed representations to the effect that he had been the target of unjust prosecution by a conspiracy of non-state and government officials because he was a whistleblower, and he and his family were at significant risk of physical harm. The Secretary of State did not accept the Claimant’s representations. He was also satisfied that the Claimant had not been denied a fair trial nor a right of appeal.
  7. The Secretary of State gave due regard to the Claimant’s submission that imprisonment in Czechia would breach Articles 2 and 3 ECHR because of his poor health. On the evidence, that submission was not accepted.
  8. The Secretary of State did not accept that the Claimant’s removal from the UK would amount to a breach of the Article 8 rights of the Claimant and his family. The decision identified the paragraphs of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules (the suitability criteria) under which his application would be refused.
  9. Finally, the Secretary of State concluded that the Claimant had not demonstrated that his country had derogated from its obligations under the ECHR, nor had he identified any other exceptional circumstances which should lead to his asylum claim being admitted for substantive consideration.
  10. Although the decisions under challenge were made on 30 January 2026, the Claimant did not file this application until 11 am on 11 February 2026. As the extradition is scheduled for the afternoon of 12 February 2026, it would be extremely difficult to list an oral hearing in time, and in my view, it is not necessary to do so.