MA -v- Hampshire County Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-001927

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 September 2025

Before:

Robert Palmer KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King
on the application of
MA
(by his litigation friend, Afnan Khalid)

-v-

Hampshire County Council

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY ROBERT PALMER KC
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

  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;

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as MA;

(iii) the name of the witness identified within the Statement of Facts and Grounds at §8 is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(iv) the witness referred to at (iii) above is to be referred to orally and in writing as RM.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or RM or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant or RM 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. Applications to file further evidence: Permission is granted for the Claimant to adduce and rely upon:

(a) The addendum reports of Dr David Seddon dated 10 April 2025 and 9 July 2025;

(b) The witness statement of RM dated 9 July 2025;

(c) The expert report of Dr Sarah Heke dated 4 August 2025; and

(d) The witness statement of Afnan Khalid dated 4 August 2025.

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review: Permission is granted on all grounds.
  2. Transfer: The claim is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal pursuant to section 31A(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
  3. Interim relief:

(a) By 5pm on 29 September 2025, the Defendant must provide the Claimant with age-appropriate support and accommodation in accordance with his claimed age pursuant to the Children Act 1989 pending the outcome of these proceedings or further order.

(b) The Defendant may apply to vary or discharge paragraph 6 above. Any such application is to be served on the Claimant.

THIS IS A MANDATORY INJUNCTION. BREACH MAY GIVE RISE TO PROCEEDINGS FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT MUST BE COMPLIED WITH UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS SET ASIDE BY A COURT, EVEN IF AN APPLICATION TO VARY OR DISCHARGE IT HAS BEEN MADE UNDER PARAGRAPH 5(b) ABOVE

6. Costs reserved.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

  1. Anonymity: the Claimant is an asylum-seeker, who claims to be a child and who has been diagnosed as suffering from poor mental health. The witness RM is also an asylum-seeker. In such circumstances, the limited derogation from the principle of open justice resulting from anonymisation is justified by compelling reasons and is proportionate.
  2. Applications to admit further evidence:
    (a) The additional reports of Dr Seddon and RM’s statement are relevant to the dispute concerning the Claimant’s age and should be considered in relation to that issue of precedent fact.
    (b) The additional report of Dr Heke and Afnan Khalid’s statement are informative of the Claimant’s mental health and relevant to the issue of interim relief.
    (c) It is in the interests of justice and the overriding objective to admit the evidence. Any prejudice to the Defendant in admitting it is outweighed by the injustice which would be caused by refusing to admit it.
  3. Permission to apply for judicial review: Although the evidence as to the Claimant’s age is mixed, and some may ultimately be held to be of limited weight, the material before the Court taken at its highest raises a factual case which is capable of succeeding in a contested factual hearing. That issue is to be determined in the Upper Tribunal in the ordinary way.
  4. Interim relief: There is a serious issue to be tried. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant of interim relief, in light of the following factors:

(a) The evidence as to the Claimant’s behaviour and conduct when formerly accommodated as a minor indicates that he was not out of place in such accommodation and there is no suggestion that he created any safeguarding risk to other young people with whom he was housed;

(b) The expert evidence and evidence of those who have interrelated with him since the date of his age assessment indicates that the Claimant’s mental health has been adversely affected since he was removed from that accommodation and placed in adult accommodation;

(c) While recognising the pressure on local authority resources, there is in the circumstances a greater risk of injustice if the Claimant were wrongly not treated as a child than if he were wrongly treated as a child;

(d) The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order.

Signed: Robert Palmer KC
Date: 22 September 2025