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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000769

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

25 February 2026

Before:

Christopher Kennedy KC

Between:

THE KING on the application of
GPL

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an Anonymity Order and an extension of time to file the claim and on an application by the Defendant for an extension for the filing of an Acknowledgment of Service.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant including their applications for extensions of time and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence.

ORDER By Christopher Kennedy KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  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 GPL.
    (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 Claimant’s application for an extension of time to file his claim
      (a) The time for the Claimant to file his claim shall be extended until 11 March 2025, the date it was actually filed.
    1. The Defendant’s application for an extension of time to file an Acknowledgment of Service:
      (a) The time for the Defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service (CPR 54.8) shall be extended to 28 April 2025, the date it was actually filed.
    2. Permission to apply for judicial review:
      (a) Permission is granted on grounds 1 and 2.
      (b) Permission is refused on ground 3.
    3. Case Management Directions:
      (a) The Defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.
      (b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
      (c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
      (d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard copy versions of the hearing bundle.
      (e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
      (f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
      (g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
      (h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.
      (i) Where permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission at a hearing. This must be done by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date on which this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.

    Reasons

    1. Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. There is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
    2. Extensions of time for filling the claim form and the Acknowledgment of Service: The claim was filed out of time. It should have been filed before 31 January 2025 but was not filed until 11 March 2025. There are emails from the Claimant evidencing attempts to file it in early February 2025 and it is stated in the claim form that attempts were made to file it before then and within time. I considered seeking a further statement from the Claimant but decided not to do so for the following reasons.
      a. The pre-action protocol was complied with by both parties timeously;
      b. The Defendant has acknowledged service and not taken a point on the late filing of the claim;
      c. The Defendant has also made its own application for an extension of time for filing an Acknowledgment of Service to which the Claimant does not object;
      d. The case is already old and further inquiries would result in further delay.
      e. The points raised by the Claimant on which I have given permission potentially have some wider importance In the circumstances, I have concluded that, notwithstanding the importance of time limits in Judicial Review applications, the breach was not significant, there was said to be a reason for it and it is in the overall interests of justice for the extension to be granted. I have reached a similar conclusion in relation to the filing of the Acknowledgment of Service, to which the Defendant consents and I have considered it when making my decision with regard to permission.
    3. Permission: It Is arguable that the attitude of the Defendant to the risk evidenced by the Claimant’s conviction is internally inconsistent. It is also arguable that the Defendant does not sufficiently address the significance of the earlier positive reasonable grounds decisions in the Claimant’s case. I could not identify an arguable public law error in the Defendant’s treatment of the risk of re-trafficking.