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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000129

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

12 January 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
HF

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(NRM Ref: 30990867)

Order

On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief;
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. The Defendant is restrained from dispersing the Claimant to accommodation in Swansea until the determination of the application for permission to apply for judicial review, or further order.
  2. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 3 days notice to the other party.
  3. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to his identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “HF”.
  4. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker and victim of trafficking who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
  2. The Claimant seeks to challenge the decision of the Defendant to disperse him from London to Swansea, Wales, on or about 15 January 2024.
  3. The Claimant has complex mental and physical health needs. The NRM has determined that there are Conclusive Grounds that he is a victim of modern slavery, and he has been assigned an anti-trafficking support worker from the Salvation Army. In the 15 months that he has been in his current accommodation, he has built up a support network. There is evidence that the proposed move will have an adverse effect on his mental health, and his recovery.
  4. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has failed to take relevant considerations into account and he has made an irrational decision. The Defendant has also failed to give reasons for the decision to disperse.
  5. The Claimant’s solicitors have made extensive efforts to engage with the Defendant via pre-action letters, and notification of the proposed judicial review claim, but have not received any response from the Defendant.
  6. On the information before me, I am satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried. There is insufficient time for the Court to obtain a meaningful response from the Defendant, and process it, before the date of dispersal. I am satisfied that the balance of convenience lies in favour of maintaining the status quo with an order restraining the Defendant from proceeding with the dispersal.