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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON -002662

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

10 June 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Stacey

Between:

The King
on the application of
HUP
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and urgent interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE STACEY

  1. For the purposes of this application and in order to preserve the position, consistent with the order of Bourne J of 15 April 2026 made in case number AC-2026- LON- 001734 by the claimant against the same defendant, the claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and for him to be referred to orally and in writing as HUP.
    a. 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.
    b. 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.
    c. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. It is ordered that the claimant’s two case references 001734 and AC-2026-LON-002662 are consolidated.
  3. The application for urgent interlocutory relief is refused.

REASONS

  1. The Claimant applies for urgent interim relief on form N463 requiring a judicial decision within 24 hours for an order (1) mandating the facilitation of his return to the UK following his removal to France pending resolution of his judicial review claims; (2) prohibiting taking any further steps to remove him to France until determination of his judicial review claims and (3) anonymity. In the substantive claim he seeks a declaration that decisions made by the defendant on 27 February, 2, 7 and 13 April 2026 are unlawful.
  2. The claimant had previously brought proceedings (AC-2026-LON- 001734 “the Earlier Proceedings”) in which anonymity was granted by Bourne J on 14 April 2026 with the cipher HUP to be used in place of the claimant’s name. For the same reasons given in Bourne J’s order anonymity is granted on the same terms in these proceedings.
  3. In the Earlier Proceedings Bourne J also granted a termporary prohibitory injunction on the papers prohibiting the claimant’s removal to France giving the defendant leave to apply to discharge the order including to the out of hours judge. The defendant availed herself of the opportunity and later on 14 April 2026 paragraphs 2-6 of the Bourne J order were discharged by Eyre J. the prohibition on the claimant’s removal to France was discharged and he was removed to France the following day on 15 April 2026. The applicant has made no further filings in the Earlier Proceedings.
  4. He now applies to be returned to the UK pending resolution of both the Earlier Proceedings and the present proceedings (“the Second Proceedings”). Since the two cases are linked an order consolidating both claims is appropriate.
  5. The claimant asserts that his situation in France has become unliveable and he fears for his life. The accommodation he was given in France was horrific and dangerous. He is forced to leave at 8:00am in the morning and can only return at 6:00pm so he is forced to walk outside all day. He is starving as he cannot afford breakfast. He is suffering from severe psychological distress because he is forced to completely stop taking his mental health psychiatric medications as he has no access to doctors or pharmacies or medical care in France. His health is deteriorating severely due to his kidney condition and he is in constant pain.
  6. He contends that he has a strong prima facie case and there is a serious National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”) victim identification issue in C’s case and C will not be recognised as a victim of trafficking in France. He is a vulnerable victim who has had difficulties obtaining support in France and his current circumstances in France breach articles 3, 4 and 8 ECHR. He risks permanent physical and psychological damage or death.
  7. The claim thus seeks to challenge the Agreement between the UK and France on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys, 2025 (“the 1 in, 1 out Treaty”) and in alleges there is a real risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR. However the application does provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that France as a signatory to the ECHR has failed to comply with Article 3 and nor has he demonstrated sufficient cogent evidence of vulnerability and health difficulties to support the submission that night time only accommodation gives rise to a real risk of a breach of Article 3.
  8. As to the assertion that the claimant has been unable to access lawyers to pursue his claim for judicial review whilst in France, the fact that he has been in France since 15 April 2026 and been able to access lawyers to bring the Second Proceedings and make the further interim relief application is evidence that he has been able to access lawyers whilst in France this last two months.
  9. Given the strong public interest in the defendant being able to pursue her 1 in, 1 out Treaty and policy and the lack of evidence of a real risk of the breach of articles 3, 4 and 8 by his presence in France and the apparent lack of a strong prima facie case, the claimant has not demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience is not in his favour.
  10. The application for interim relief is therefore refused.

Signed: MRS JUSTICE STACEY
Date: 10 June 2026