July 31, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case numbers: AC-2026-LON-001013

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

30 July 2026

Before:

Duncan Atkinson KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
KBA
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence.

ORDER BY DUNCAN ATKINSON 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 KBA.

(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.

Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1669.50.
Further provision as to costs:

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 2 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 2 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is
served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a
hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is
served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the
permission hearing.

Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 1 hour, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker, who alleges that he has been the victim of sexual violence. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Permission: The Claimant, a Sudanese national, arrived in the UK in a small boat from France on 13 December 2025. He made a claim for asylum and he was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (‘NRM’). On 18 December 2025, the Immigration Enforcement Central Authority determined that there were no reasonable grounds to conclude that he was a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. His first ground challenges that decision on the basis, it is contended, that was unlawful and contrary to policy.

(3) On 14 January 2026, it having been determined that his asylum and humanitarian protection claims were inadmissible, and France having accepted his readmission, the Claimant was returned to France under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Frenc Republic on the Prevention of Dangerous Journeys (Treaty). This was first due to occur on 28 January 2026 and the application for permission was made before a second date was decided. His second ground challenges the removal direction, and his third ground challenges his detention for the purposes of that removal. In each case it is contended, that was unlawful and contrary to policy.

(4) On 3 March 2026, the Claimant had sought interim relief to prevent his readmission to France and on 4 March 2026 that application was refused by the Hon. Mrs Justice Lieven, on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried. It was following that decision that he was returned to France on 5 March 2026.

(5) Given that chronology, it is clear that his application for permission is academic and should be refused for that reason.

(6) In any event, his grounds are not reasonably arguable.

(7) Ground 1: The Claimant argues that the negative reasonable grounds trafficking decision was unlawful. There is no reasonable argument that the SSHD did not have available information on the basis of which to reach the impugned decision, so as to conclude that the relevant tests were not met. It was for the SSHD to determine the intensity of inquiry required. The post-decision evidence provided did not undermine the basis for the SSHD’s conclusion. There is no reasonable basis to impugn that decision as irrational.

(8) Ground 2: The Claimant argues that the removal directions were unlawful and contrary to policy. Where the SSHD has conducted an investigation, and reached a rational conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, there are no reasonable grounds to argue his removal was in breach of Article 4, ECHR. In any event, there was no evidence to show removal to France, a signatory to the Europe Convention Against Trafficking (‘ECAT’), was a breach of Article 4. ECAT itself did not alter the position, and this ground is not reasonably arguable.

(9) Ground 3: The Claimant argues his detention for the purposes of removal was unlawful. Given that the legality of the decisions that led to the Claimant’s detention cannot be impugned, neither can the legality of that detention. His detention was kept under review in accordance with the SSHD’s Adults at Risk Guidance. This ground, therefore, is not reasonably arguable.

Signed: Duncan Atkinson KC
Date: 30 July 2026