March 28, 2025

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

Administrative Court Civil High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000732

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

18 March 2025

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
IKM

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

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 IKM

(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.

(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.

2. Mandatory injunction:

(a) Forthwith and in any event within five days of the service of this Order the Defendant must provide the Claimant and her dependants with adequate self-catered dispersal accommodation within 30 minutes of the South Ockendon area on public transport.

(b) The parties have liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order upon
providing 2 working days’ written notice to the other party

THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2(b) ABOVE

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. In the course of her asylum claim, any Tribunal appeal would be subject to an order for anonymity. That protection which is afforded to asylum claimants should not be compromised by these proceedings. In my judgment the Claimant’s Article 8 ECHR rights outweigh any media interest in this matter, and therefore any relevant rights under Article 10 ECHR. An Order would therefore meet the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Re Guardian News and Media Ltd. [2010] 2 AC 697.

Mandatory injunction:

(a) The Claimants submit that it is appropriate to provide them with interim relief, as sought, pending final resolution of these proceedings and relies on the facts as outlined in the Statement of Facts and Grounds.

(b) For the reasons set out in the Statement of facts and Ground, the Claimant has a strong prima facie case that the Defendant is in breach of (i) her statutory duty to provide adequate accommodation and (ii) that the ongoing failure to relocate the family is irrational. Alternatively and in any event, as the Claimant submits, there is no requirement in the present context for the Claimant to show a strong prima facie case for interim relief to be granted: see R (BG) v Oxfordshire County Council [2014] EWHC 3298 [§ 30]. It was noted in BG that it was not necessary for a claimant to show any “particular vulnerability” in order to obtain interview relief of this kind [30]. The Claimant’s second daughter is however a vulnerable individual (due to being a minor). The relevant factors weigh in support of granting interim relief

i) The Claimant is a Namibian National who arrived in the United Kingdom in December 2019 with her two daughters. The Claimant made an application for asylum in January 2021 with her daughters as dependents, and subsequently added her granddaughter who was born in May 2021. The asylum claim was refused in December 2023, which the Claimant appealed the same month. This appeal remains outstanding.

ii) The Claimant and her family were previously accommodated by the Defendant pursuant to s 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in dispersal accommodation in South Ockenden, where the Claimant’s second daughter has been enrolled at Harris Academy Ockendon since November 2023..The Claimant’s second daughter continues to attend this school and is in her GCSE year. The Claimant and her family were forced to leave the accommodation after an Eviction Notice was served in April 2024 and the family were subsequently moved to a hotel in Gravesend in May 2024, over an hour and 20 minutes away from the school by public transport.

(iii) The Claimant sent an email to Migrant Help on 7 June 2024 with supporting documents, requesting to be moved closer to her daughter’s school. The Claimant called Migrant Help multiple times to chase a response but was told to wait.

(iv) Her solicitors sent a pre-action protocol letter on 5 November 2024. The Defendant responded on 18 November 2024 asserting that the Claimant has been granted her request, and a grant letter dated 14 November 2024 was subsequently received by the Claimant, stating the family would be moved within 30 minutes of South Ockenden by public transport. On 6 December 2024, the Claimant and her family were moved to a hotel in London which is over an hour and 30 minutes away from the school in South Ockenden by public transport. The Claimant’s daughter is often late for school due to the long commute and the travel time is leaving her exhausted and unable to revise effectively for her upcoming exams.

(v) The Claimant and her family require suitable dispersal accommodation within a reasonable travel distance from the daughter’s school and interim relief is, accordingly, forthwith and, in any event, within 5 days of the service of this Order which is an appropriate timescale to allow the Defendant an opportunity to respond whilst taking into account the urgency given the Claimant’s daughter’s examinations are imminent.

(i) The Claimant’s second daughter is currently in her GCSE year (Year 11). She will be sitting exams in the coming months which are vital to her prospects of further education. The GCSE exam timetable starts on 8 May 2025.

(ii) The Claimant’s second daughter is regularly late to school due to the distance from her school and current accommodation.

(iii) The Claimant’s second daughter is regularly too tired to revise due to the journey time from school to home (and back)

(iv) On 14 November 2024, the Defendant has agreed to relocate the Claimant and her dependants to within 30 minutes public transport of South Ockendon (where her second daughter is enrolled at Harris Academy). Three months A:39 later, the Defendant has failed to do this.