MA -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case No: CO/3331/2022
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
19 October 2022
His Honour Judge Tindal (sitting as a High Court Judge)
The King on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, there being no Acknowledgement of Service by the Defendant
ORDER by His Honour Judge Tindal (sitting as a High Court Judge)
- The Claimant is granted anonymity under CPR 39.2(4) and shall be known as ‘MA’. There shall be no publication of the name of the Claimant nor of any information that may lead to his identification or that of his family.
- The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.
- The claim is to be listed for 1 day; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree.
- The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
- Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.
- The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than  weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website.
- The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than  days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
- The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than  days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
- The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall 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, shall be lodged with the Court not less than  days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
- Costs in the Case
- The Claimant is an Iraqi national asylum seeker with a wife and 6-year-old child. Accordingly, I order anonymity under CPR 39.2(4) on the basis the Claimant be known as ‘MA’, be no publication of the name of the Claimant nor of any information that may lead to his identification or that of his family.
- The Claimant arrived in the UK in December 2021, claimed asylum on arrival and was shortly thereafter accommodated in initial accommodation under s.98 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in a hotel. The family share a bedroom with no cooking facilities. Despite their request for dispersal to longer-term accommodation under s.95 IAA being granted on 16th May 2022, they remained at the hotel when the claim was issued on 28th September 2022, not There has been no Acknowledgement of Service nor application to extend time to file it from the Defendant despite the deadline being 6th October
- On the Claimant’s Grounds, the claim is arguable and I grant permission. The Defendant has accepted its dispersal duty under s.95 IAA. Despite the Claimant’s requests for that to expedited to safeguard the welfare of his child, the Defendant’s responded on 17th June was:
“There are no mitigating circumstances or medical evidence as to why your client and his family cannot reside in Initial Accommodation. The children not having somewhere to play is not a factor that would grant a relocation.”
This is arguably a failure to comply with the Defendant’s duty under s.55 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in allocation of s.95 IAA accommodation. As observed in cases such as R(O) v SSHD  EWHC 2734 (Admin) ps.71ff, this does not mandate any particular outcome, but does require children’s interests to be a primary (not the only or ‘paramount’) consideration and a ‘conscious and conscientious assessment’. The Defendant’s position in this case is arguably a breach of that and I am not assisted by more detailed explanation or argument in any Summary Grounds. The other grounds are also similarly arguable in absence of response.