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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001737

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

14 April 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Bourne

Between:

HUB

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the claimant for an injunction to restrain his removal to France on 15 April 2026

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the claimant

ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Bourne:

  1. For the purpose of this application, and solely to preserve the position, the claimant is granted anonymity and is, until further order, to be referred to in these proceedings as HUB (“the cipher”). The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher. Pursuant to s.11 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. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant. (b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  2. Any person affected by paragraph 1 above may apply to vary or discharge that paragraph by written application served on each party.
  3. The order at paragraph 1 above must, if not set aside before then, be reconsidered when the application for permission to claim judicial review is determined.
  4. The application for an injunction is refused.
  5. The defendant must forthwith provide a copy of the rule 35(3) report dated 4 March 2026 to the French authorities so that it is available to those responsible for receiving the claimant in France when he arrives.
  6. Costs reserved.

REASONS

Serious issue to be tried

In view of my conclusion on balance of convenience, I will state my conclusions shortly on the question of whether there is a serious issue to be tried.

There may be a serious issue of what is the Claimant’s true age, but the question of whether/how that impacts on the question of his removal to France is not developed in the application.

The other alleged serious issues to be tried (SFG para 20) are focused on the challenge to the Defendant’s decision to detain the Claimant. That does not assist me in deciding whether to grant interim relief restraining his removal to France.

Meanwhile I am not persuaded that there is any serious issue to be tried about the correctness of the Defendant’s negative reasonable grounds decision which was based on a detailed analysis of the various accounts which he gave and a rejection of his credibility. That fundamental question receives little attention in the application.

I am also not persuaded by the contention in the interim relief application that there is such a similarity between this case and R (AYA) v SSHD [2026] EWHC 552 (Admin) as to create a serious issue of whether this case should be stayed behind the “common issues” hearing in that case.

Balance of convenience

I have directed that the rule 35 report be provided to the French authorities. It has not been shown that the French authorities would be unable to provide the claimant with any necessary medical care, including in respect of his mental health, or that he would be at real risk of immediate harm if he is returned to France. He would be able to continue to pursue his claim from France. At a later stage of the case it would be open to him, if appropriate, to seek an order for his return to the UK.

Conversely, as this Court has repeatedly said, there is a strong public interest in the Secretary of State being able to pursue her “1 in 1 out” policy unless or until it is shown to be unlawful or that, in an individual case, a return decision (or a necessary step towards making the return decision) is unlawful. If the court grants interim relief in cases where that has not been shown, then that would be injurious to the public interest. It would reduce the deterrent effect which is fundamental to the intended purpose of the policy so as to reduce large-scale unlawful and dangerous attempts to enter the United Kingdom. This is a strong factor in favour of refusing interim relief.

I conclude that the balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the refusal of interim relief, and interim relief would have been refused even if there had been a serious issue to be tried in the challenge to the decision to remove the Claimant.

Signed: Mr Justice Bourne
Dated: 14/04/26