HNL -v- Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001222

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

18 March 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
HNL

-v-

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(CEPR: 7319239)

LORD CHANCELLOR AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE

Order

On the Claimant’s application for an anonymity order, urgent consideration, directions and interim relief;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a. The name of the Claimant is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “HNL”.
  2. Pursuant to section 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.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    a. Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    b. 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    c. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. The application for interim relief is to be expedited and listed for a hearing to be fixed as soon as reasonably possible after the filing of the skeleton arguments on 1 April 2026.
  5. The application is not suitable for hearing by a Deputy High Court Judge. The time estimate is 3 hours.
  6. The First Defendant’s response to the application for interim relief, must be filed and served by 25 March 2026.
  7. The First Defendant must file and serve an indexed and paginated bundle of all relevant documents in its possession or control relating to the Claimant, which are not already included in the Claimant’s bundle, by 25 March 2026. The electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared by the First Defendant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The First Defendant must also lodge a hard-copy version of the bundle at the Administrative Court Office.
  8. Any Reply from the Claimant must be filed and served by no more than 5 days after service of documents by the First Defendant pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7 above.
  9. The Claimant must lodge a hard-copy version of the permission bundle at the Administrative Court Office, no later than 7 days after the date of this order.
  10. The Claimant must file and serve a skeleton argument by 27 March 2026.
  11. The First Defendant (and the Second Defendant if he intends to take part in the interim relief application) must file and serve a skeleton argument by 1 April 2026.
  12. The Claimant must file and serve an agreed authorities bundle, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing. The electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant must also lodge a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle at the Administrative Court Office, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing.
  13. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other parties.
  14. Costs reserved.

Reasons

        1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker and claims to be a victim of modern slavery. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
        1. The Claimant, who is a national of India, is detained under immigration powers and has previously been subject to a deportation order. He was transferred from an immigration removal centre to HMP Wormwood Scrubs on 15 August 2024 because of his behaviour. The Claimant suffers from bipolar affective disorder.
        2. Under Ground 1 of the claim, the Claimant claims he is being unlawfully detained and he seeks an urgent oral hearing for interim relief to release him and provide him with accommodation.
        3. The other grounds are not the subject of interim relief applications. Ground 2 is a challenge to the Second Defendant’s alleged failure to provide access to legal advice for immigration detainees in prison. Grounds 3 and 4 relate to claims for damages.
        4. The Claimant is not ready to proceed with Ground 2. He seeks a stay pending disclosure of documents and then he intends to apply to amend his Statement of Facts and Grounds. I am not in a position to make any order on this unusual application without first hearing from the Defendants.
        5. On December 2025, the Claimant instructed Bail for Immigration Detainees to apply for bail. I have not been informed of the progress of this application.
        6. Bhatt Murphy Solicitors were instructed in February 2026 and wrote to the First Defendant. In response to their letter, on 17 February 2026 the First Defendant stated “we note that your client intends to submit an NRM referral and an asylum claim. These now constitute barriers to removal. His case will be reviewed to assess whether these barriers can be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, after which his detention will be reviewed”. The letter went on to say that the Claimant has been assessed as meeting Level 2 under the Adults at Risk policy and his healthcare needs could be managed in detention by NHS staff at the prison (he was under the care of the mental health team).
        7. The Claimant has commenced this claim without waiting for the Defendants to provide their pre-action protocol responses which are due imminently.
        8. I agree with the Claimant’s view that the Second Defendant is not required to participate in the interim relief application and my case management directions reflect that. Of course, the Second Defendant may participate if he wishes to do so. In so far as my case management directions differ from those proposed by the Claimant, it is because I found the Claimant’s timetable to be unrealistically short. Contrary to the Claimant’s view, I do not consider that this to be a straightforward or easy application.
        9. I have ordered an expedited hearing. I cannot fix a date for the hearing now, as the List Office has to check on the availability of judges and courts.