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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000500

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

21 February 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Cavanagh

Between:

The King on the application of
LAN

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

AMENDED ORDER WITH ANONYMITY UNDER THE SLIP RULE

On an application by the Claimant for further interim relief, following the order made, out of hours, by Mr Justice Morris on 11 February 2025.

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Cavanagh

  1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), anonymity is granted in the terms of the Schedule appended to this order.
  2. The Defendant shall forthwith and not later than 2pm on 22 February 2025 provide the Claimant with weekly support payments of £49.18 pending a further hearing in this matter.
  3. The further hearing referred to in paragraph 1 shall be listed at the same time as the inter partes hearing to be listed following the grant of interim relief by Morris J on 11 February 2025.
  4. There be liberty to apply to vary or set aside the terms of the order. Any application to vary is to be made in writing upon 24 hours’ notice to the other party.
  5. Costs reserved.

Schedule

  1. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4) there shall be no publication in any newspaper or other media or other disclosure of any name, address, image or other information tending to identify the Claimant in relation to his involvement in these proceedings.
  2. In any publication or broadcast relating to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be known by the letters “LAN”.
  3. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the Statement of Case, Judgment or Order from the Court records only if a Statement of Case, Judgment or Order has been anonymised such that:
    a. The Claimant is referred to in those documents as “LAN”.
    b. The address of the Claimant has been deleted from those documents.
    c. For the purpose of this claim, including any Statement of Case, Judgment, Order or other document, the Claimant shall be known by the letters “LAN”.
  4. In so far as any Statement of Case, Judgment, Order or other documents to which anyone might have access pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A – D does not comply with paragraph 3 above, the Claimant’s Solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of any such document adjusted so that it does comply. Such copies are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant original; and the originals are then to be retained by the Court in a sealed envelope marked “not to be opened without the permission of a Judge or Master of the King’s Bench Division”.
  5. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, providing that any such application is made on notice to the Claimant’s Solicitor and that 7 working days’ prior notice of the intention to make such an Application is given. The Court will effect service of the application.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant has brought two claims for judicial review (AC-2024-LON- 1756 and 1760). These are listed for a substantive hearing in just under three weeks’ time, on 11 March 2025. Both claims are concerned with the Claimant’s challenge to his disqualification of support on public order disqualification grounds, in the context of a claim that he has been a victim of trafficking.
  2. On 11 February 2025, Morris J made an order to the effect that the Defendant must not evict the Claimant from his MSVCC accommodation until the determination of the application for interim relief at an inter partes hearing. It had been hoped that the hearing could be listed for 17 February 2025, but, in the event, that was not possible, and it is yet to be listed. It is hoped that it can be listed well in advance of the substantive hearing on 11 March 2025, but that date will serve as a backstop for the interim relief.
  3. The current application arises because the Claimant has no source of funds. The fourth witness statement of his solicitor, Ms Maria Thomas, says that the Claimant is destitute. He has no money for food or other essential living needs and he needs painkillers after dental surgery. He is vulnerable and has mental health issues. The sum of £49.18 is equivalent to the amount payable to those who qualify under the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract. This support has been stopped for the Claimant.
  4. In my judgment, I should grant the interim relief sought for the following reasons. First, it runs in parallel with the relief given by Mr Justice Morris. The provision of safe house accommodation is in practice of no value to the Claimant if he will starve and so, if this order is not made, the objective of Mr Justice Morris’s order will be undermined. Second, it is for a very short period. The return date for the interim relief hearing has not yet been fixed but it is likely to be before the date of the substantive hearing of the judicial review applications. Third, the underlying claims are arguable, as there is to be a substantive hearing shortly. Fourth, there is no alternative remedy available to the Claimant. In the Defendant’s response to the interim relief application, date 14 February 2025, the Defendant suggested that the Claimant had alternative means of obtaining subsistence payments, either from the local authority as a homeless person, or via section 4 Asylum Support. Since then, however, it has become clear that neither route is currently open to the Claimant. Ms Thomas tried very hard to obtain support from the local authority and Adult Social Care on the Claimant’s behalf, but it has been refused. Section 4 Asylum Support has also been refused, on 17 February The Claimant is appealing to the FTT but, as I understand it, this will not trigger any interim payments. I bear in mind that any payments made pursuant to this order will almost certainly not be recoverable, regardless of the outcome of the interim relief hearing, but the sums concerned are relatively modest and the Claimant’s needs are grave.
  5. For these reasons, I have concluded that the interim relief sought should be granted. The American Cyanamid test is passed and the balance of convenience is in favour of granting the order. The application sought an order for payment by 4pm today (21 February). This is not feasible, as it is now approximately 1 pm and so I have given the Defendant until 2pm tomorrow (Saturday) to provide the weekly support payment.
  6. I note that the Defendant says that the claim should be transferred to the Birmingham Administrative Court, and the Claimant has no objection in principle, but it is not possible to do this for the purposes of dealing with this interim relief application.