GX -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-001530
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
17 May 2024
Before:
The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald
Between:
The King on the application of
GX
-v-
Secretary of State for Defence
Order
On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order and for the claim to be certified fit for expedition
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald
1. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identities of the Claimant and Witness shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court. The Claimant shall be referred to as GX in these proceedings. The Witness shall be referred to as SH. Nothing shall be published which may reveal the name or address of the Claimant and Witness, or any other details liable to lead to their identification.
2. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant and Witness have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.
3. The application for the claim to be certified fit for expedition shall be considered at the time the application for permission is determined.
4. If possible, the Defendant shall file and serve his Acknowledgment of Service earlier than the date by which it is due to be filed in accordance with the rules. The Defendant’s SGD must address the directions that he would submit should be made if permission were to be granted.
Reasons
1. An order for anonymity is a derogation from the principle of open justice. Any such derogation will be exceptional and based on necessity. In this case, an anonymity order is strictly necessary. The Claimant is a former interpreter British Armed Forces in Afghanistan who has been deported back to that jurisdiction from Turkey. On the face of it, the Claimant is at risk of serious and possibly fatal harm from the Taliban, who the Claimant asserts are aware of his work with the British Armed forces, continue to seek him and have threatened to harm him in the past. On the evidence before the court, I am satisfied that reference to the Claimant in court documents risks seriously compromising his safety, and the safety of his family members, by increasing the risk of retribution by the Taliban.
2. By his application for expedition, the Claimant seeks an expedited timetable through to a substantive hearing in the event that permission is granted. In the circumstances, the application for expedition is best considered at the time as the application for permission is determined on the papers, following the filing of the Acknowledgement of Service.