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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002107

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 May 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

Between:

The King
on the application of
KIR
(Anonymity Granted)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant.

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

  1. The ex parte application for urgent interim relief is refused.
  2. The application for interim relief is to be listed to be determined on the papers at the same time as the permission application.
  3. Pursuant to Rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed to any person who is not a party to these proceedings without permission of the Court. The Claimant shall be referred to as KIR in these proceedings. Nothing shall be published which may reveal the name or address of the Claimant, or any other details liable to lead to their identification.
  4. Pursuant to Rule 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules, a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been completely anonymised and all references which are capable of leading to the identification of the Claimant have been deleted or otherwise redacted from those documents.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant seeks to judicially review the decisions of the Immigration and Enforcement Competent Authority of 3 February 2026 (a) to refuse the Claimant’s protection and human rights claims as “clearly unfounded” pursuant to s.94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and (b) to maintain or pursue the Claimant’s removal from the United Kingdom.
  2. By her facts and grounds, which appear to have been generated using AI, the Claimant contends that the Defendant failed to apply the modern slavery safeguarding framework to the Claimant and the United Kingdom’s obligations under Art 3, 4 and 13 of the ECHR.
  3. The Claimant seeks that her application should be considered within 3 days of being lodged. The essential nature of the application is that it is ex parte and that, therefore, the Claimant expects the court to consider it without hearing from the Defendant. Urgent consideration is sought on the grounds that the Claimant faces imminent removal from the United Kingdom. However, the Claimant has been aware of the impugned decision since 3 February 2026 and no removal date has yet been set by the Defendant.
  4. It is a fundamental rule of natural justice that the court should hear both sides on an application. This rule only yields to situations of dire emergency where there is literally no time to give notice to the Defendant and where irretrievable harm would be caused if the order were not made immediately. An application made to the Immediates judge other than in such circumstances risks being characterised as an abuse of the process of the court.
  5. There is no reason why the Claimant’s substantive application for permission to seek judicial review, and for interim relief, should not have been made in the normal way inter partes and listed as box work before a Judge of the Administrative Court.
  6. I therefore refuse the application for urgent interim ex parte relief. The application for interim relief is to be determined at the same time as the permission application on the papers in the normal way. I do not expedite it.
  7. I grant the application for an anonymity order. An order for anonymity is a derogation from the principle of open justice. Any such derogation will be exceptional and based on necessity. In this case, an anonymity order is strictly necessary. The Claimant is a protected party for the purposes of CPR 21.1(2)(d). The Claimant is an asylum seeker. The claim concerns whether she should be deported from the jurisdiction. In the circumstances privacy is necessary to protect the interests of the Claimant and, having regard to the particular importance of the principle of open justice and the Art 8 and Art 10 rights engaged, the anonymity order granted is the minimum necessary derogation from the principle of open justice to achieve this.

Signed: Mr Justice MacDonald