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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002616

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

5 June 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
LEL
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief and for an order for anonymity, dated 5 June 2026

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Applicant

ORDER by The Hon. Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant, or other matters which could lead to her identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “LEL” and any matters which could lead to her identification shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:

(a) a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;

(b) if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant;

(c) any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to all parties to these proceedings and that 5 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.

  1. This Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r.39.2(5)
  2. By 4:00pm on Tuesday 9 June 2026, the Respondent shall file and serve a response to the application for urgent interim relief.
  3. By 4:00pm on Friday 12 June 2026, the Applicant may file and serve any reply to the Respondent’s response.
  4. By no later than midday on Monday 15 June 2026, the file shall be restored to a judge of the Administrative Court for consideration of all appropriate orders and/or directions, which may include listing a hearing on short notice to the parties.
  5. Costs reserved.

REASONS

  1. This application is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
  2. The Applicant is detained under immigration powers. She seeks to challenge the lawfulness of her ongoing detention and the Respondent’s decision, dated 2 June 2026, to refuse her further submissions, and to recognise them as a fresh protection and human rights claim pursuant to paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. By her application for urgent interim relief, she seeks an order preventing her removal from the UK, pending the determination of her claim or further order, and a direction that the Respondent undertake an immediate review of the lawfulness of her continued detention, alternatively consider her immediate release on immigration bail, subject to any appropriate conditions. She also seeks expedition of her claim.
  3. The application concerns the Applicant’s liberty, in which circumstances it is appropriate that it be considered with some urgency. The Court will be assisted by the Respondent’s response to the application, which, so far as consistent with the urgency of the matter, she must be given appropriate time to provide. The Applicant does not appear to have been issued with removal directions. The time allowed by paragraph 6 of the above order, together with the order made by paragraph 8, strikes the necessary balance.

Anonymity

  1. The Applicant asserts mishandling of an asylum claim concerning allegations of serious harm, vulnerability and poor mental health. As matters stand, I consider that an anonymity order is appropriate; the potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) being protected by the liberty to apply provision at paragraph 4(c), in which ‘any interested party’ would encompass representatives of the Press and other media. It may be that, when the matter is restored to a judge in accordance with paragraph 8 of the above orders, the merit in its continuation will be revisited.

Signed: Mrs Justice Ellenbogen
Dated: 05/06/26