June 12, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002214

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

10 June 2026

Before:

Andrew Kinnier KC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
KKN
(Claimant)

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant; the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service, Summary Grounds of Resistance and reply to the interim relief application and the Claimant’s response to that reply

ORDER BY ANDREW KINNIER K.C.
(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 KKN.

(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.

Interim relief:

(a) The application is refused.
(b) The parties have permission to apply to vary or discharge para. 2(a) above within 7 days of service of this order.

3. Costs reserved.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant has made various serious allegations of trafficking and torture. It is said that publication of his details would risk harm to him. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Interim relief:

Background:

(a) The Claimant is a Portuguese national who first came to the UK in 2008. Between 2014 and 2017, the Claimant was convicted of a broad range of criminal offences including (but not limited to) possession of cannabis; theft; resisting a constable; battery; handling stolen goods; false representation; disorderly behaviour; attempted robbery; assault; dishonestly using electricity; assault occasioning actual bodily harm and burglary.

(b) In January 2018, he was removed from the UK. At some point, he returned and in March 2024, he was served another notice of removal. In August 2024, the Claimant was convicted of supplying heroin and crack cocaine (for which he was sentenced to 36 months in prison) and facilitating the acquisition of criminal property (for which he received a custodial sentence of 12 months).

(c) Between October 2025 and February 2026, the Claimant made various representations resisting deportation which were all refused.

(d) In April 2026, the Claimant was referred to the NRM and on 1 May 2026, he received a negative reasonable grounds decision.

(e) On 14 May 2026, the Defendant made a release referral for the Claimant to be released from detention. No decision has yet been made (or, at least, it has not been communicated to the court). If granted, the Defendant will take steps to secure the Claimant’s release.

(f) As at today, no removal directions have been set.

The application:

(g) The Claimant seeks various forms of relief including (but not limited to) (i) an order preventing his removal from the UK; (ii) an order requiring the Defendant to re-consider his detention; (iii) an order requiring the Defendant to maintain and preserve records; (iv) directions for urgent disclosure and (v) directions abridging time for service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service.

(h) On the basis of the materials before the court, I am not satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried or that the balance of convenience favours the grant of any of the relief sought.

(i) In summary, the Claimant challenges the negative reasonable grounds decision (dated 1 May 2026) on three bases: (i) the decision-maker applied the wrong legal threshold; (ii) failed to consider relevant evidence and (iii) irrationality. He also challenges the detention decision on one ground, namely a failure to apply the AAR policy, r. 35 safeguards and detention guidance on vulnerable detainees and potential victim of trafficking.

(j) As to the first, a plain reading of the negative grounds decision demonstrates that (i) the correct threshold was applied; (ii) the Claimant gave materially differing accounts; (iii) the Defendant considered those accounts and whether there was an adequate reason to justify the inconsistencies but reasonably concluded that the Claimant’s credibility was so doubtful that his account of trafficking could not be believed.

(k) As to the second, the available evidence demonstrates that the AAR policy was properly applied and the Claimant’s evidence on torture was properly considered. Those matters were reasonably balanced against other considerations including prospect of removal; risk of absconding; risk of harm to the public given the Claimant’s extensive criminal record.

(l) In the circumstances, the Claimant has not demonstrated that there is a serious issue to be tried.

(m) As to the balance of convenience, it weighs against the grant of relief. As the Defendant, there is a significant public interest in detaining those who are the subject of a removal order and who have a significant and serious offending history. If the Claimant is released in the meantime, so be it. But on the papers before the court, the balance plainly favours refusal.

Permission:

(n) Time has not yet expired for service of the Claimant’s reply to the Acknowledgement of Service. It is not therefore appropriate to decide permission without it.

Signed: Andrew Kinnier K.C.

Date: 10 June 2026