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

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/294/2023

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

31 January 2023

Before:

Clive Sheldon KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
KXG

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

On an application by the Claimant for expedition
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

Order by Clive Sheldon KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

  1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), the Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as “KXG”.
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant or her child. The Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as KXG.
  3. The claim is suitable for expedition with the application for permission to be considered within 7 days of service by the Defendant of the acknowledgment of service and summary grounds of defence.
  4. The Defendant shall have liberty to apply to vary or set aside this order on two working days’ notice to the Claimant.
  5. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant seeks to challenge the Defendant’s failure to provide her and her new-born baby with adequate accommodation pursuant to s.95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (IAA). In particular, the Claimant contends that she should be dispersed to self-contained accommodation within the Bradford or West Yorkshire area. She is currently living in shared accommodation in a mother and baby unit which also houses other single mothers with babies and very young children.
  2. In support of the Claimant’s representations to the Defendant for dispersal to self-contained accommodation she relied upon a report by a Clinical Psychologist, Dr Yasmin Pethania, who commented on the Claimant’s symptoms of PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and stated that her mental health will deteriorate if she continues to reside in her current accommodation. The Defendant refused the Claimant’s request for self-contained accommodation, but made no reference to Dr. Pethania’s report.
  3. I consider that, in light of what is set out in Dr. Pethania’s report and the apparent failure of the Defendant to respond to that report, it would be appropriate for a judge to determine the question of permission at some speed. It seems to me, however, that it is not appropriate to direct a ‘rolled-up hearing’ without seeing the Defendant’s response to the Claim. If the Court grants permission and considers that the matter needs to be determined quickly then a full hearing can be expedited at that stage.
  4. The application for anonymity is granted, given the Claimant’s own mental health condition and the involvement of her child.