GSD -v- Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003694

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

20 February 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon

Between:

The King on the application of
GSD

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence

Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

and

GSN

GSW
(Interested parties)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the First Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon

  1. Anonymity: 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 and Interested Parties shall be referred to by ciphers GSD, GSN and GSW respectively;
    (ii) the Claimant’s name and the names of the Interested Parties shall be withheld from the public; and 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 his identification as a party to these proceedings in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  2. Any person wishing to vary or discharge paragraph 1 of this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  3. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  4. Costs: The Claimant must pay the First Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £500.
  5. Further provision as to costs:
    (a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:
    (i) paragraph 4 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;
    (ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.
    (b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 4 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.
    (c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):
    (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 4 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.
    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 4 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:
    – the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
    (d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):
    (i) Paragraph 4 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:
    – the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
    – permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.
    (ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 4 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:
    – the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing.
  6. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:
    (a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.
    (b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
    (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
    (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
    (iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
    (iv) this Order;
    (v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);
    (vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
    (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.
    (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
    (i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
    (ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
    (iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
    (e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
    (f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

Reasons

(1) I grant anonymity to the Claimant and to the Interested Parties, who are his children currently residing in Afghanistan. It is alleged that the children are at risk from the Taliban. Insofar as there is such a risk, it would be necessary to protect their identities, and this overrides the principle of open justice.
(2) The application for permission is refused for the reasons set out in the Summary Grounds of Resistance of the First Defendant. I do not consider that the Claimant has established an arguable case that the review decision
upholding the refusal of his application under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) was unlawful.
(3) The Claimant, his wife, and two of their children have been relocated to the United Kingdom under the ARCS Pathway 3. Two other children (who are now adults) remain in Afghanistan. The Claimant has made an application
under ARAP with a view to relocating those two children to the United Kingdom.
(4) The Claimant challenges the review decision made on 4 September 2025 upholding the ARAP decision. In essence, the First Defendant concluded that the Claimant had not satisfied the decision-maker that he had
personally made a substantive and positive contribution to the United Kingdom’s national security objectives in Afghanistan through his role as a security guard contracted to work at the British Embassy in Kabul: Condition 2(ii) of Category 4 was not met. Whilst the Claimant’s duties and work supported a smooth and secure running of the Embassy, his duties and work were not regarded as contributing towards the achievement of the United Kingdom’s national security objectives with respect to Afghanistan.
(5) The conclusion was one that was reasonably open to the decision-maker, and no arguable error was made in arriving at that conclusion. The decision is one of judgment, to which a real degree of deference must be applied by
the Court. The focus of the decision was on the contribution made by the Claimant to national security objectives and not merely the contribution to those objectives made by those working in the building that he guarded or
assisted in guarding.
(6) In making that decision, the First Defendant considered the evidence presented in the round; did not ignore the contribution of what took place at the Embassy to the national security objectives of the United Kingdom, but acknowledged that it was the Claimant’s role that was being assessed; and applied the appropriate legal test.
(7) In the circumstances, there is no basis to link the Claimant’s case to that of R(CBC) v SSD and SSFCDA (AC-2025-LON-003174), where a rolled-up hearing has been ordered.