HY -v- Secretary of State for the Home Deparment (anonymity order)

Anonymity Order

Claim No: SN/87/2020

 

In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission

24 April 2020

 

Between:

HY

-and-

Secretary of state for the Home Department

 

ON the Applicant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 and for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’)

ON the explanatory note (as defined at paragraph 28(v) of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)) having been served on 8 April 2020 by email on the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note)

ON the Legal Representatives not having notified the Commission of any objection to the application

ON considering the documents lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Practice Note (legal submissions, the witness statement of Anita Vasisht dated 8 April 2020 and the explanatory note)

AND ON the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order:

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The Applicant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as HY.
  2. Nothing may be published which, directly, or indirectly, identifies him as an applicant in these proceedings before the Commission.
  3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Applicant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
  4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Applicant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application whereupon this order will continue for the duration of the determination of that application.

REASONS

  1. The Secretary of State refused HY’s application for naturalisation on 28 February 2020 on the grounds that he did not meet the good character requirement because of his alleged support for the PKK. HY has applied to review this decision. HY is a medical professional working for the NHS, who lives in London, and has close family members who live in Turkey.
  2. HY’s case in support of this application is that:
  3. a) the proceedings are in their infancy and there is a prospect that further reasons to support this application will emerge;
    b) there is a real risk of serious harm to HY’s professional reputation and a real risk of serious harm to HY’s vulnerable patients;
    c) there is a real risk to the physical safety of HY’s family in Turkey;
    d) there is a real risk of harm to the family members of potential witnesses on whose evidence HY may wish to rely and who live in Turkey; that risk might also deter such witnesses from giving evidence at the hearing of the review).
  4. The Commission cannot decide at this stage whether HY’s case in support of this application is well-founded. It must assume that it is, or might be, in the light of the risks which he describes. Those risks justify the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this order represents, and its interference with the Article 10 rights of the media and the public.