December 9, 2025

KD -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and others (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001362

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

24 November 2025

Before:

Robert Palmer KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
KD

-v-

(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) Director of Public Prosecutions
(3) Chief Constable of Kent Police

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendants’ Summary Grounds of Defence, and the Claimant’s Consolidated Reply

ORDER BY ROBERT PALMER KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

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 KD.

(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.

Applications: In response to the application notices filed by the parties:

(a) time for the First Defendant to file the Acknowledgement of Service is extended to 10 June 2025;
(b) time for the Third Defendant to file the Acknowledgement of Service is extended to 2 June 2025;
(c) the Claimant is permitted to file the Reply to the Defendants’ Summary Grounds of Defence, notwithstanding that it is longer than 5 pages;
(d) the Claimant is permitted to rely on the Claimant’s Second Witness Statement, the First Witness Statement and exhibit of Victoria Taylor, and the First Witness Statement and exhibit of Jessie Brennan.

Permission for claim against the First Defendant: The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be listed as a “rolled- up” hearing. If permission is granted, the court will proceed immediately to determine the claim.
Expedition: The rolled-up hearing in respect of the claim against the First Defendant is to be listed before a High Court Judge no later than the week commencing 27 April 2026.
Case Management Directions in respect of the claim against the First Defendant:

(a) The Claimant must, within 7 days of the date of service of this Order, file an undertaking to pay the continuation fee (see below) if permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

(b) The Defendant must, within 42 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(c) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

(d) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (b) above.

(e) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(f) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the rolled-up hearing.

(g) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the rolled-up hearing.

(h) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(i) The time estimate for the rolled-up hearing is 2 days. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

(j) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.

Permission for claim against the Second and Third Defendants: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: No order for costs is made in respect of the Second and Third Defendants’ costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence.
Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration in respect of the claim against the Second and/or Third Defendants (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed at the same time and date as the hearing of any valid request for reconsideration made in respect of Claim No AC-2025-LON-000522, R (NA) v SSHD and others, and no later than the week commencing 26 January 2026.

(b) The permission hearing is to be listed before a High Court Judge with a time estimate of 1 hour in respect of this claim alone, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge, or with a time estimate of 3 hours if to be heard with a renewed application in NA. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.
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.

(f) 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.

(g) 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.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant (“C”) alleges that he is the victim of human trafficking. The limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1 are accordingly justified.

(2) Permission: For the reasons set out below, it is appropriate to order a rolled- up hearing in respect of the claims against the SSHD, but to refuse permission in respect of the claims against the DPP and the CCKP.

(3) So far as the claim against the SSHD is concerned:

(a) C had claimed in his asylum screening interview that he had been held at gunpoint and forced to steer the dinghy. It is at least arguable that this claim ought to have been investigated further by the SSHD prior to the charging decision notwithstanding that C did not repeat the claim in his interview under caution, and that the SSHD should have provided the CPS with the evidence that he had given to that effect. It is appropriate that the SSHD should provide a properly evidenced response to this complaint.

(b) The SSHD’s objections on grounds of delay and alternative remedy are significant, however.

(i) There has been a long delay in filing this claim after the date when grounds first arose. The fact that the alleged unlawfulness is said to be ongoing does not alter this fact.

(ii) Notwithstanding that delay, there is at least arguably a public interest in the Claimant’s allegation of an unlawful practice being operated by the Defendants being tested against the facts of this case. Multiple matters are relevant to the question of whether any extension of time that may be necessary should be granted. The weight to be given to them should be determined in light of (among other things) the merits of the claim and the public interest in determining it.

(iii) While the alternative remedy of an appeal to the CACD is a powerful answer in respect of events after C was charged with an offence, it is at least arguable that it does not provide a complete answer to the challenge to the actions or omissions of the SSHD pre-charge. The significance of this objection is better assessed against a full examination of the merits of the claim.

(d) The time for filing detailed grounds of defence and evidence is extended from 35 days to 42 days to take account of the holiday season and the likely need for the Secretary of State to make full use of the ordinary 35 day period.

(4) The claims against the DPP and CCKP are unarguable, however.

(a) As to the DPP, the CPS was not provided with any indication that C had claimed to have been trafficked: in particular, it was not provided with evidence of what C had said at the asylum screening interview. It was not arguably irrational or otherwise unlawful for the CPS to have failed to ask for it to be provided absent any indication of trafficking in the evidence before it.

(b) As to the CCKP, the custody officer had sufficient evidence upon which to charge C (and C quickly entered a plea of guilty to the charge), and had been authorised to do so by the CPS. He was entitled to rely upon the evidence gathered by the Immigration Officers for that purpose. Police officers were not required to launch their own independent investigation before such a decision could be taken.

(5) Expedition: To the extent that C alleges that there is a systemic failure in the SSHD’s approach to the investigation of claims of modern slavery and trafficking in respect of those identified as piloting small boats across the Channel, it is appropriate that the claim be heard promptly. That must be balanced with allowing the SSHD a proper opportunity to respond to the claim. A hearing by the week commencing 27 April 2026 would strike that balance.

(6) Link with Claim No AC-2025-LON-000522, R (NA) v SSHD and others: Since permission has been refused in NA, I make no order joining this case. However, if and to the extent that the application for permission is renewed in each case, those applications should be heard at the same time. Any such renewed permission hearing should be heard by the week commencing 26 January 2026, to allow the claims to catch up with the rolled-up hearing, if and to the extent that any further permission is granted in either claim.

(7) Costs: No order for costs is made in respect of the Second and Third Defendants’ costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, as neither filed a schedule setting out the amount claimed, contrary to paragraph 25.4.2 of the Administrative Court Guide 2025 (and its predecessors).

Signed: Robert Palmer KC

Date: 24 November 2025