Case No. SC/143/2017
In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
9 July 2020
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
On the Appellant’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 Legal Representatives’ having been notified of the application by email on 19 June 2020 On considering the documents (application notice, statement of truth of Fahad Ansari of 19 June 2020, legal submissions, draft order, and the explanatory note to the Legal Representatives describing what the case is about) (‘the documents’) lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (the Practice 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 Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as K3.
2.Nothing may be published which, directly, or indirectly, identifies him as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
3.There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, 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 Appellant 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.
1.The Appellant was born in Bangladesh. He was registered as a British citizen in 1992. He appeals against the Secretary of State’s notice dated 8 September 2017 of her intention to deprive him of his British nationality (‘the decision’). He is not in the United Kingdom.
2. The Secretary of State’s assessment was that the Appellant had dual British/Bangladeshi nationality and was an Islamist extremist associated with a proscribed terrorist organisation who had tried to travel to territory controlled by ISIL in order to take part in terrorism-related activity. In the Secretary of State’s view, he was a threat to national security.
3. The Appellant contends that if he were identified as an appellant in the Commission, this would put him and his wife and child at risk of ill treatment breaching article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’).
4.He also contends that if his name were published, that would be likely to identify his wife and child, which would breach their rights protected by article 8 of the ECHR, and would be contrary to that child’s best interests.
5. Finally, he disputes the truth of the allegations against him, and contends that his reputation should be protected unless and until the allegations are proved.
6. The Commission is not in a position to decide, on the basis of the documents which support the application, whether or not the Appellant’s fears are well-founded. It must assume, at this stage, that they are.
7. The risk that the Appellant’s fears will turn out to be well-founded outweighs the article 10 rights of the public and the media, and justifies the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this Order represents.