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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-CDF-000034

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

10 March 2026

Before:

HHJ Keyser KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GOD

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity, expedition, a rolled-up hearing and interim relief

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

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE KEYSER KC
SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  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 names of the Claimant and of the members of the Claimant’s family are 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 shown in the heading of this Order, and the members of the Claimant’s family are to be referred to by the initials set out in paragraph 5 of the Defendant’s Response to the Claimant’s application.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or any member of his family or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or any member of his family 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 or any member of his family;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or any member of his family, 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. Interim Relief:
    The application for interim relief is refused.
  3. Abridgement of time and expedition:
    The application for abridgment of time and expedition is refused.
  4. Adjournment of permission to a hearing:
    The application for a rolled-up hearing is refused.
  5. Costs:
    Costs are reserved.

Reasons

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. Further, the claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant and the members of his family have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) There are insufficient grounds to justify granting the other relief sought. For present purposes, I am prepared to assume that the Claimant shows a serious issue to be determined. However, I am not currently prepared to accept that his claim has the logical force claimed for it in the Statement of Facts and Grounds. In my judgment, the threshold for the grant of an interim mandatory injunction is not reached, having regard to the merits of the case (so far as I feel able to assess them at present), the circumstances of the Claimant and his family (which, if not ideal, are far from severe in comparison with many other asylum seekers), the fairly lengthy history of this matter, the efforts made and still being made by the Defendant, and the need for the Defendant to have regard to the pressures existing in respect of other asylum seekers. I also cannot see that abridgment of time is justified (in truth, an order for it now would achieve little) or that this is a case justifying a rolled-up hearing.

(3) There appear to be prospects that this matter will be resolved relatively speedily, without the need for judicial determination. However, in view of the fullness of the Defendant’s Response to the application, I cannot imagine that she will have difficulty filing Summary Grounds of Defence quickly. I shall ask the Court Office to refer the matter for a decision on permission promptly upon receipt of the Summary Grounds.