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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-MAN-000340

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 August 2025

Before:

Mr CMG Ockelton,
sitting as a judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
(anonymised as JRF)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY Mr C M G Ockelton sitting as a judge of the High Court on the 08/08/2025

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and 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 JRF.
    (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.
    (c) 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.
    (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Other matters: No other order on the application for interim relief.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The claim relies on personal and medical information in which the claimant and the claimant’s family have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Other matters: The claimant seeks by way of interim relief a mandatory order to accommodate the claimant and her family in accommodation of a specified type within a specified area by a specific date. But there is no basis for saying that such an order could be executed, or could be adequately supervised by the Court, and it is more than the claimant could expect to obtain by these proceedings even if wholly successful. Besides, although the claim is that the failure is ongoing the truth of the matter is that things have been as they are for many months, and in those circumstances it would in my judgment be wrong to make an order of the kind sought without giving the defendant the usual opportunity to respond to the claim and the application for interim relief. The applications for permission and for interim relief will be considered by a judge on the papers after the expiry of the time limited for the defendant’s responses.

Signed: CMG Ockelton
Date: 08/08/2025