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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001249

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:

Vikram Sachdeva KC
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
LEW
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

and

Manchester City Council
(Interested Party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for Anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY VIKRAM SACHDEVA KC, SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. 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 LEW.

(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.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(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.

  1. Costs. Costs in the case.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an age-disputed asylum seeking child. There is evidence that naming the Claimant will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Signed: VIKRAM SACHDEVA KC

Date: 10 JUNE 2026