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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002812

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

17 June 2026

Before:

The Hon Mr Justice Fordham

Between:

The King
on the application of
LLC
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

On a Form N463 application by the Claimant (17.6.26) for immediate mandatory order to restrain his removal to France.

ORDER BY THE HON MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

  1. The application is dismissed.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as LLC. 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.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity is justified as necessary for the reasons at Bundle p.34.

(2) The essential focus of the challenge, as I see it, is on the reasoned decision (26.5.26) to maintain detention, which is relied on to challenge removal communicated on 9.6.26.

(3) This claim has been filed very late in the day on 17.6.26. The excuses given are that urgency was first appreciated at 11am on 17.6.26 (p.39), and that the claim has been filed as soon as imminence of removal was appreciated (p.47). These are unsupported and groundless. The detention position was known on 26.5.26. If the Claimant and those assisting him wanted to challenge the detention, this could have been done at any time after 26.5.26. The removal on 18.6.26 was known on 9.6.26. The Home Office Assertive Letter (p.56) specifically addressed judicial review. So, this has all been left to the last moment. I sense a lack of candour in the excuses put forward. The Court must ensure it is not bounced into interim mandatory relief, because the clock has been run down. I do not know what is meant by the Home Office being put on notice (p.48). I am not going to wait to see if I can elicit representations from the Home Office. I do not need to.

(4) Leaving aside delay, I can see no serious issue to be tried. The lengthy and detailed grounds for judicial review criticise in a number of ways the reasoning in the detention decision of 26.5.26. Failure to engage. Unduly narrow focus. Lack of meaningful assessment. Not a reasoned analysis. I do not think that these criticisms, and the legal shape they have skilfully been given by the writer of the grounds, have a realistic prospect of success. Even assuming that challenging the detention is a route to challenging the removal, it is not therefore viable in this case. I see no arguable unlawfulness in the Home Office decision-making in this case.

Signed: MR JUSTICE FORDHAM

Date: 17.6.26