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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/1714/2023

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

11 May 2023


The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE


The King on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department
(HO Ref: S1795500)


HM Prison and Probation Service in Wales
(Interested party)


On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration, anonymity and interim relief;
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to his their identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “LMF”.
  2. The Claimant’s solicitors shall file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  3. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  4. The claim is certified fit for expedition.
  5. The applications for permission and for interim relief shall be determined at an oral hearing, to be listed on a date to be fixed, having regard to the availability of counsel, as soon as possible after 15 June 2023. Time estimate: 3 hours.
  6. The Defendant shall file and serve her Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Resistance, and response to the application for interim relief, no later than 21 days after service of the claim form.
    Form JR-MPA. Judicial Review. Miscellaneous Paper Application. Version September 2020
  7. No later than 21 days after service of the claim form, the Defendant shall file and serve:
    a. copies of all detention reviews,
    b. GCID notes,
    c. records (including electronic notes and emails) of searches and suitability checks in respect of any approved premises or accommodation.
  8. The Claimant may file and serve a Reply, if so advised, no later than 14 days after service of the documents referred to at paragraphs 6 and 7 above.
  9. The Claimant must file and serve an agreed authorities bundle, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing. The electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant must also lodge a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle at the Administrative Court Office, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing.
  10. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  11. Costs reserved.


  1. I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant is an asylum seeker who claims to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.
  2. This claim requires urgent consideration because of the length of the Claimant’s detention, despite the grant of bail (conditional upon provision of accommodation), by the First-tier Tribunal on 23 February 2023, and the recognition by the Case Progression Panel that he should be bailed as there is no prospect of removal in the near future. The Claimant is an Adult at Risk Level 2 because of mental health issues, affecting his suitability for detention.
  3. However, the issues are complex and the Court will not be in a position to determine them fairly without Summary Grounds of Resistance from the Defendant, together with relevant disclosure. It will take time for the Defendant to draft its response and compile the disclosure, and I do not think it is realistic to abridge the standard 21 day period. The Claimant must then be given an opportunity to file a Reply, particularly as I have not made provision for skeleton arguments, in order to save time. As a result, a hearing in May is not feasible.
  4. I do not consider that the Claimant’s requests for disclosure in respect of periods when the Claimant was removed from association are appropriate or necessary at permission stage.
  5. This claim may be capable of settlement. If it is settled, the parties are requested to notify the Court to vacate the hearing as soon as possible.