June 25, 2026

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

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LDS-000137

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

24 June 2026

Before:

Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
LLG
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant

ORDER BY BENJAMIN DOUGLAS-JONES KC,
SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

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 LLG.

(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.

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.

Rolled-up hearing: The application for permission to apply for judicial review is adjourned to be listed as a “rolled-up” hearing. If permission is granted, the court will proceed immediately to determine the claim.
Expedition: The hearing is to be listed on a day in the week beginning 6 July 2026, not before 7 July and not later than 10 July 2026.
Case Management Directions:

(a) The Claimant must, by 4pm on 29 June 2026, file an undertaking to pay the continuation fee (see below) if permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

(b) The requirement for the Defendant to file and serve an Acknowledgement of Service is dispensed with.

(c) The Defendant must, by 4pm on 1 July 2026, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(d) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, by 4pm on 2 July 2026.

(e) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, by 4pm on 2 July 2026. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(f) The Claimant and Defendant must file and serve by mutual exchange Skeleton Arguments (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 2 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 2 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 2 hours. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

(i) CPR 2.11 (variation of timetable by written agreement between the parties) does not apply.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is a failed asylum seeker. The Claimant has not advanced evidence which establishes convincingly the need for the derogation sought through anonymity relating to her asylum status. However, the claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1 at this stage. The Judge hearing the rolled up hearing will be able to decide whether the order at paragraph 1 should endure at or following that hearing.

(2) Rolled-up hearing and expedition: The Claimant has failed to comply with the procedure required for an application for urgent consideration, including the filing of a Form N463. Nevertheless, the Defendant acknowledges the Claimant’s complex medical needs and high risk pregnancy in its correspondence and the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant of 30 March 2026 sets out:

“The decision to provide you with support is on the basis that you appear to be destitute, and the provision of accommodation is necessary for the purposes of avoiding a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights having an outstanding a medical impediment to travel (High risk pregnancy) and the fact that the judge in your previous appeal accepted that further submissions would soon be submitted.”

(3) By reference to the above and the Defendant’s letter of 19 May 2026 (page 96 of the Claimant’s bundle) it follows that the Defendant prima facie accepts that it has a duty (see R (DMA) v SSHD [2021] 1 WLR 2374) to rehouse the Claimant before she gives birth to avoid a breach of the Claimant’s absolute right under Article 3, ECHR. On the basis that the Claimant has not been rehoused to date, this claim needs to be resolved finally with consideration as to whether mandatory relief is appropriate before the birth if at all practicable.

(4) I have deliberately imposed fixed date deadlines on the parties to afford the Defendant the longest possible time to file DGCC before a hearing in the week of 6 July 2026. The hearing is not to take place on 6 July itself to afford the Judge hearing the claim reading time on 6 July.

Signed: Benjamin Douglas-Jones KC
Date: 24 June 2026