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

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001725

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

19 August 2026

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
GTV
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service

ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DPEUTY 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 GTV.

(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.

  1. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £ 1,708.
  3. Further provision as to costs:

(a) 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 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(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.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any 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 2 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 (together with the request for reconsideration) 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 assessed.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

  • the other party may, within 7 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;
  • 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.

    5. 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

    Anonymity
    (1) 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. The application is not opposed. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

    Permission
    (2) The Claimant challenges:
    (a) The Defendant’s decision to certify the Claimant’s asylum claim as clearly unfounded dated 11 April 2025 (Certification decision).
    (b) The Defendant’s decision to conclude that there were not reasonable grounds that he was a victim of modern slavery dated 22 May 2024 (NRM decision).

    Factual background
    (3) The Claimant is an Albanian national born on 22 June 1997. He arrived in the UK on 22 December 2019 by small boat. The Claimant reports that he had to leave Albania for safety reasons and was offered by B to flee the country in exchange for work in the UK to repay the debt of £10,000 – for the travel arrangement. When he arrived in the UK, the Claimant reports that he was told he had to work with drugs which he refused and escaped. He claimed that he received death threats from B due to his refusal to work to pay off his debt. He states that the then met another man, Besi, and through him found work (10-12 hours each day) at a building site and on occasions, Besi would keep his salary.

    (4) On 15 May 2024, the Claimant was encountered by the police and was detained as an illegal entrant. On 17 May 2024, he claimed asylum and a referral was made to the NRM. The NRM made a negative reasonable grounds decision on 22 May 2024, however the Claimant submits that it was not served on him at the time.

    (5) The Claimant’s screening interview was undertaken on 6 June 2024. His substantive interview was on 3 April 2025. Following this, the Claimant was told that he had until 10 April 2025 to file further evidence. On 4 April 2025, the Claimant’s legal representatives requested a copy of the interview transcript, audio recording and request for further evidence to be made in writing. On 9 April 2025, the Defendant provided a copy of the interview transcript. No request for further evidence was made. The Claimant legal representatives sent post-interview representations and evidence on 10 April 2025.

    (6) On 11 April 2025, the Claimant were served with the refusal letter. The Claimant’s legal representatives were notified at 1705 on 11 April 2025 by automated email that their email from 10 April 2025 had not been delivered; resent the corrections and evidence and asked the Defendant why she had not followed her published policy.

    (7) On 14 April 2025, in respond, the Defendant states that unless there was evidence that the documents were submitted before the deadline then there would be no reconsideration of the decision. On the same day, the Claimant’s legal representatives also received disclosure from the NRM, in that disclosure there is no material which shows the negative reasonable grounds decision ever being served on the Claimant. The Claimant says he has never received it.

    The Claimant’s Grounds
    (8) The Claimant’s grounds can be summarised:
    (a) Ground 1: Unlawful certification of the Claimant’s claim
    The Claimant submits that the Defendant has certified the claim under s 94(1) Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The test in a certification claim relatively modest, whether on an appeal before a properly directed tribunal showing anxious scrutiny the claim could succeed, then that is sufficient in showing that the claim is not clearly unfounded. The Claimant acknowledges given the date of his asylum claim that his case would be assessed under the relevant provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. He submits that the Defendant’s decision is one which has misapplied the relevant test, and that on the underlying narrative to his claim in an appeal, a Judge properly directing themselves could allow his appeal.
    The Defendant submits that it was entirely open for her to decide that the asylum claim was not based on a reason covered by the Refugee Convention, and he did not have an objectively well-founded fear of persecution or serious harm upon. In addition, the Claimant failed to demonstrate that he could not reasonably avail himself to sufficient protection or internal relocation in Albania. The Defendant had taken the claim at its highest and considered relevant country guidance information in relation to Albania. The Defendant further considered the Claimant’s human rights claim and reasonably concluded that his removal would not breach Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
    The Defendant provided separate reasons for the decision to certify the claim. It was noted that Albania is a state listed under section 94(4) and hence the Defendant is directed to certify the claim under subsection (1) unless satisfied that it is not clearly unfounded. For the reasons set out in the decision and PAP response, the Defendant could not be satisfied that the claim was not clearly unfounded and the Claimant has failed to identify any error of law in the decision.

    (b) Ground 2: Failure to apply policy in relation to comments on Asylum interview
    The Claimant submits that his legal representatives have been on record with the Defendant since November 2024. However, the Defendant failed to send the interview record to his legal representatives until 9 April 2025. The Defendant appears to accept this in the PAP response where she says that the transcript of the interview was sent to the Claimant on 3 April 2024. However there is no suggestion that it was also sent to the Claimant’s legal representative, in clear breach of her own policy. This gave the Claimant very little time to review and provide any corrections.
    Further, the Claimant argues that the Defendant failed to adjust the time by when representations could be made and then served the decision before 9am on the 11 April 2025.
    Therefore, the Claimant submits that he Defendant had already written the decision before the deadline for the further evidence and corrections for the interview had expired. The Claimant submits that the Defendant behaved in a procedurally unfair and irrational way.
    The Defendant submits that The Defendant submits that she acted in accordance with her policy when serving a copy of the transcript directly on the Claimant. A copy of the transcript was provided to A J Jones Solicitors on Wednesday 9 April 2025, within three working days from their request on Friday 4 April 2025, which cannot be considered an unreasonable timeframe. In addition, it was agreed that the Claimant would send further evidence by 4pm on 10 April 2025. Asylum Interviews policy (page 62-63) states that it was open to the Claimant or his legal representatives to request further time to serve further evidence. No such request was made. In these circumstances, it was not procedurally unfair or irrational for the Defendant not to adjust the deadline. Further, in accordance with her policy, it was lawful for the Defendant to serve the certification decision on 11 April 2025 after no further evidence was received before the deadline.
    The Defendant submits that she acted in accordance with her policy when serving a copy of the transcript directly on the Claimant. A copy of the transcript was provided to A J Jones Solicitors on 9 April 2025, within three working days from their request on 4 April 2025, which cannot be considered an unreasonable timeframe. In any event, it is unclear why the Claimant could not have forwarded the transcript to his legal representatives, A J Jones Solicitors, from 3 April 2025.
    Secondly, it was agreed that the Claimant would send further evidence by 4pm on 10 April 2025. It was open to the Claimant or his legal representatives to request further time to serve further evidence. No such request was made. In these circumstances, it was not procedurally unfair or irrational for the Defendant not to adjust the deadline.
    Thirdly, in accordance with her policy, it was lawful for the Defendant to serve the certification decision on 11 April 2025 after no further evidence was received before the deadline. It is standard procedure for the Defendant to draft decisions after the substantive asylum interview and then review (and if necessary, revise) prior to service in event further evidence is received before the deadline. There is no procedural unfairness with this approach.

    (c) Ground 3: Failure to serve NRM decision. The Claimant submits that whilst the NRM decision is dated May 2024, following the PAP response, it is clear that the Defendant did not serve it on the Claimant at that time. The Claimant states that there is no evidence that the Defendant ever served it on the Claimant.
    The Defendant submits that she acknowledges that the Claimant did not receive the NRM decision when it was initially served on 22 May 2024 as it was sent to IRC Yarls Wood and he was released from detention on 20 May 2024. The Defendant only became aware of these circumstances after receiving the disclosure request on 18 October 2024. It is not disputed that the NRM decision was disclosed via email on 18 October 2024, and this was received by A J Jones Solicitors. There is no rebuttal to the presumption of service. It is unclear whether the Claimant or A J Jones Solicitors failed to properly review the materials disclosed and identify the NRM decision. It is further submitted the Defendant is not required to show that the Claimant had in fact read the decision, only that it was effectively served (which she has).

    (d) Ground 4: Unlawful finding from the NRM that the Claimant is not the victim of modern slavery in the UK.
    The Claimant submits that the NRM in its reasonable grounds decision considers two potential incidents of trafficking. The first in relation to his trafficking to the UK, the second after his escape from B, and his exploitation on the building site. He submits that the decision letter fails to give reasons why
    his narrative is not sufficient to show reasonable grounds that he was trafficked to the UK. The decision letter criticises the Claimant for a lack of detail, however the referral was made to the NRM by immigration enforcement staff. C states that he did not produce any evidence of his own and he was not represented at the time.
    The Claimant submits that he has given a consistent and clear narrative as to what happened to him. The Claimant submits that the Defendant’s decision in light of that is unsustainable.
    The Defendant fully relies on the NRM decision and paragraphs 5(xl) to (l) of the PAP response in refuting this ground for judicial review.

    (e) Ground 5: Procedurally unfair decision and/or breach of Tameside duty
    The Claimant submits that the NRM decision makes several references to the Claimant not providing sufficient information, or “fundamental details”. However the Defendant gave the First Responder one working day to respond to each of the NRM requests, and the Claimant himself was not contacted to provide further information. Therefore, the Claimant argues that it is procedurally unfair, irrational and a breach of the Tameside duty by the Defendant to consider a lack of “fundamental” information, without having given either the Claimant any time to provide it, or the First Responder any reasonable time to provide it.
    The Claimant submits that it is noteworthy that the asylum interview had also not taken place by this point, and the NRM failed to revisit its decision once the interview had been carried out.
    The Defendant response: The Defendant relies on paragraph 5(xlv) of the PAP response. The First Responder may often only be afforded one working day to respond to requests for further information. This position is reflected at paragraphs 7.6, 14.49, 14.57 and 14.74 of the Modern Slavery Guidance [DB/92, 162-164 and 168]. There is no obligation on the Defendant to contact the Claimant before a reasonable grounds decision is made.
    In relation to the Claimant’s stating that the asylum interview had not taken place prior to the NRM decision, the Defendant submits that the asylum and trafficking claims are considered separately. There is no obligation on the Defendant to postpone a reasonable grounds decision until the Claimant has completed an asylum interview. On the contrary, as explained above, the Defendant is directed to make a decision within five working days of referral.

    (9) In my judgment the Claimant was properly served in respect of the NRM decision. He does not disputed that the NRM decision was disclosed via email on 18 October 2024, received by A J Jones Solicitors. He does not seek to rebut the presumption of service. In these circumstances the claim was made long after the period prescribed by CPR 54.5 and I find that the NRM claim was fail on that ground alone.

    (10) I have concluded that having regard to the submissions made, the Claimant has no realistic prospects of succeeded in respect of the unlawful certification his asylum claim.

    (11) In any event, having considered the submissions I have also decided that the Claimant has no realistic prospect of challenging the lawfulness of the NRM decision.

    Signed: RICHARD CLAYTON KC
    Date: 19 August 2026