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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002999

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

29 June 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mrs Justice Lieven

Between:

The King
on the application of
LHA
(Claimant)

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

and

West Sussex County Council
(Interested Party)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief preventing his removal from the United Kingdom to France

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER BY THE HON. MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN

  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 LHA.

(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. Interim relief is refused.
  2. Costs reserved.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and an alleged victim of trafficking. 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.

(2) [Mandatory/prohibitory] injunction: There is a strong public interest in upholding the UK’s international treaty obligations and the Defendant’s legal powers, see AYA [2026] EWHC 552 and FTDI [2025] EWHC 241.

(3) The challenge in this case is to the Defendant’s age assessment, and the conclusion that the C is clearly over the age of 18.

(4) In my view there is no strongly arguable case here that would justify the grant of an interim order that would prevent C’s removal to France. The D’s conclusion that C was clearly over the age of 18 was not simply based on demeanour or appearance. It was also based on the C’s answers to questions and the overall consistency of the answers that he gave. The fact that C’s appearance and demeanour strongly suggested that he was considerably over the age of 18, indeed over the age of 21, was a material consideration that the D was entitled to take into account.

(5) D’s conclusions were strongly supported by the very inconsistent information he gave about his date of birth, which was wholly incompatible with the information on the alleged birth certificate that was subsequently produced. D’s reasoning, as set out in the original decision and then in the PAP response letter dated 18 June 2026, which considered the alleged birth certificate, is clear and compelling.

(6) The date on the alleged birth certificate strongly conflicts with the various answers that the C has given in interview. It is also inconsistent with the C’s narrative as to his movements with his family.

(7) The D is justified in giving little or no weight to a copy of a birth certificate, rather than an original, which is impossible to verify, and which is itself inconsistent with the evidence given by the C.

(8) In those circumstances there is nothing which comes close to the level of arguability that would be required to justify preventing the C’s removal to France.

(9) It is open to the C to continue with the case and if so ordered he can be allowed to return from France.

Signed: MRS JUSTICE LIEVEN

Date: 29 JUNE 2026