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

Special Immigration Appeals CommissionAnonymity Order

Case number: SN/10/2025

In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission

2 October 2025

Before:

Mr Justice Jay

Between:

HY

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Anonymity order

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’)

AND 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 17 September 2025 by email on the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note)

AND ON considering the documents lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Practice Note (legal submissions, the witness statement of Marcela Navarrete of 17 September 2025 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 her 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.

REASONS

  1. HY was refused naturalisation as a British citizen by the Respondent on 31 July 2025, on the grounds that he did not meet the good character requirement because of alleged support for the PKK (the Kurdish Workers Party). HY has applied to the Commission for a review of the decision. HY has family members residing in Turkey.
  2. The case in support of this application includes that there is a real risk to HY and/or members of his family, and potential witnesses, if his identity is disclosed in these proceedings.
  3. If 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.

MR JUSTICE JAY

BY THE COMMISSION

Dated this 2nd day of October 2025