MAM -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity OrderOrder
Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003024
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
9 September 2024
Before:
The Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon
Between:
The King on the application of
MAM
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
On an application by the Claimant for expedition and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon
1. The Claimant is to be anonymised as ‘MAM’ for the duration of these proceedings;
2. The Defendant shall within 10 days of the date of this order file an Acknowledgement of Service;
3. If the Defendant seeks to maintain detention of the Claimant, then the Defendant is to notify the Court, and an urgent oral hearing to be listed thereafter, to determine the question of interim relief: to be listed for 2 hours and for the Claimant to provide any further written submissions 48 hours before the hearing, and the Defendant to provide any further written submissions 24 hours before the hearing;
4. Liberty to the Defendant to apply to vary this order on giving at least 48 hours written notice to the other party;
5. Liberty to the Claimant to apply to vary paragraph 3 of this order on giving at least 48 hours written notice to the other party;
6. Costs reserved.
Reasons
1. The Claimant seeks to challenge the ongoing decision to detain him under immigration powers. The Defendant proposes to deport the Claimant to Jamaica following his criminal conviction, and the detention is maintained for that purpose The Claimant contends that the detention is unlawful for procedural reasons, but also on Hardial Singh principles: essentially, the Claimant is a victim of modern slavery and has a protection and human rights claim pending for fear of being targeted by a Jamaican gang. The Claimant seeks expedition and an urgent oral hearing for interim relief if detention is maintained. In its response to the letter before claim, the Defendant seeks to justify the immigration detention and has stated that the Claimant’s claims are likely to be addressed with some expedition.
2. I agree that the Claimant should have his identity anonymised. If his allegations are correct, he could be at considerable risk of being targeted and his requirement for anonymity outweighs the public interest in open justice and transparency.
3. With respect to expedition, I see some force in the Claimant’s submissions that ongoing detention is unlawful: the Claimant may be in a higher ‘at risk’ category that the Defendant has identified, further the Claimant may be a lower risk of harm to the public than identified by the Defendant (especially in light of the Parole Board decision). However, based on the complexity of the material that I have seen about the background offending and the Claimant’s circumstances, it is likely to take some time for the Defendant to prepare and produce an Acknowledgment of Service which will be of assistance to the Court. In the circumstances, I will order expedition of the Acknowledgment of Service, but for 10 days from the date of this order rather than the 5 days requested.
4. I also consider that the urgent oral hearing – if one is still required, depending on the Defendant’s response – should not be fixed for counsel’s convenience. If the matter is urgent, as the Claimant’s submissions make out, counsel’s convenience should be of minimal significance and the oral hearing should be heard as soon as possible. I have made some directions to assist with that oral hearing if it is to take place. The parties are at liberty to apply to the Court to vary those directions if so advised.