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

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-002965

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

27 November 2024

Before:

David Pievsky KC
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
LM

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Upon a renewed application by the Claimant for permission to bring judicial review

And upon the application being listed for an oral hearing on 27 November 2024

And upon the Claimant applying for reconsideration of a decision made by the Court lawyer refusing his request for an adjournment of that oral hearing

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER by David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge:

  1. The Claimant’s application is refused. The consent order filed by the parties adjourning the case is not approved. The hearing listed for 27 November 2024 shall proceed.

  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2 there shall be no publication of the Claimant’s name, nor any other particulars likely to lead to his identification. In the proceedings, he shall be referred to as “LM”. Pursuant to s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there shall be no publication of his identity, nor any particulars likely to lead to his identification, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

REASONS

  1. The Claimant asked for the hearing to be adjourned on the basis that his counsel would be away on holiday on the relevant day. The Court lawyer refused the request. The Claimant has applied to the Court for reconsideration. The Defendant consents to the adjournment application.

  2. However, whether to adjourn a listed hearing is a matter for the Court. The parties’ views are not determinative.

  3. As the Court lawyer correctly noted in her decision, the general position, as reflected in paragraph 14.4.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide, is that the unavailability of counsel is unlikely to constitute a good reason for an adjournment.

  4. The Claimant has provided no information which justifies departing from the general rule. I see no reason to think that any injustice will be caused. There are other counsel who will be able to pick up the case and make submissions at a permission hearing.

  5. The Claimant is potentially vulnerable as a victim of trafficking. Balancing the risk to him against the fundamental importance of open justice, I accept that anonymity is justified.

Signed: David Pievsky KC
Date: 8 November 2024