HOM -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004312

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

17 August 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Kimblin

Between:

The King
on the application of
HOM
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence
(Defendant)

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN

  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 ‘HOM’.

(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. Extensions of time are granted in respect of:
    (a) Filing the AoS (retrospective)
    (b) Filing a Reply to the AoS (retrospective)
    (c) Amending SGD (retrospective)
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. 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 £1500.00
  4. 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 of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

    (i) paragraph 2 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 2 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 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 specified.

    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 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 2 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 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 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.

    REASONS

    Anonymity

    (1) The claimant is an Afghan national born in 1972. The Claimant states that between 2008 and 2017 he was a driver for Adam Smith International (“ASI”), a consultancy which provided services under contract to some UK government departments on projects in Afghanistan. His work was principally as a driver with some casual interpreting.

    (2) The Claimant challenges the decision to refuse his application under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”). The application was refused on 19 May 2022 and again on review on 26 October 2022 [51]. Following a request from the Claimant, the matter was further reviewed and the original decision upheld on 11 August 2025. This is the target decision in these proceedings.

    (3) There is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family will increase the risk they would face as a result of the matters which are the subject of the Claim. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice.

    Extensions of time

    (4) I have granted extensions of time for stages in this claim which have, in effect, been overtaken by later events and the passage of time. The procedural position is now regularised in those respects.

    Permission

    (5) Grounds 1 and 2 of the claim contest the substantive decision’s rationality and the decision maker’s reasoning. Ground 4 is somewhat related in that it challenges the decision maker’s attempts to inform himself lawfully, and takes a Tameside point. I address these grounds together and then turn to Ground 3 which is a policy ground.

    (6) The Claimant’s case is that the process by which the target decision was arrived at was irrational. I do not consider that it was arguably irrational.

    (7) It is not the programme by which an applicant is employed that has to be shown to have made a substantive and positive contribution; it is the work of the individual applicant. It has to be shown that in the course of relevant employment, “the person”, the individual applicant, made a substantive and positive contribution to the UK Government’s national security objectives: Garnham J in R (AFA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2143 at [64].

    (8) The decision maker determined that the Claimant, in the course of his employment as a driver for ASI, had not made a substantive and positive contribution to the UK Government’s national security objectives. The case notes demonstrate detailed consideration of the relevant question and analysis of the evidence. In my judgment, there is no arguable basis on which it can be shown that the decision maker applied Condition 2 irrationally or incorrectly. The reasons were perfectly proper and adequate reasons on the basis of what only needed to be a fairly narrow set of underlying facts and evidence in the Claimant’s particular case. The Claimant knows why he was unsuccessful.

    (9) The case notes add to the Claimant’s understanding of the reasoning for the target decision. They also demonstrate that there was appropriate enquiry and analysis. I therefore refuse permission on grounds 1, 2 and 4.

    (10) The policy ground (3) is now well traversed in substantive decisions. The Claimant addresses these at [57] of his amended SFG. He submits that the Defendant failed to undertake a qualitative evaluation, did not consider the contribution made by the Claimant in exact terms and applied the wrong threshold.

    (11) Applying AFA as followed in R(STS) v SSD [2026] EWHC 363, I find that the approach taken to the policy in this case accords with Condition 2, Category 4 criteria. The Defendant did not misapply his own policy. It is not a policy which is very difficult to understand or apply. The facts of the Claimant’s case are not complex. The Claimant takes an overly legalist approach to an exercise which is evaluative, guided by the policy context which is set out in ARAP. It is, after all, a discretionary policy when read as whole.

    (12) For these reasons I refuse permission on ground 4.

    (13) I have assessed the Defendant’s reasonable costs of the AoS at £1500.

    Signed: MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN
    Date: 17 August 2026