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

Anonymity Order

SN/82/2019

IN THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 2D OF THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION ACT 1997

17 January 2020

 

Before:

The Commission

Between:

MAY

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

 

ORDER

ON reading the applicant / appellant’s application for continued anonymity and reporting restrictions, made pursuant to the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity and Related Matters

ON considering the documents, consisting of an application notice, explanatory note, witness statements of the Appellant, of his wife and of his solicitor (‘the documents’) lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)

ON the anonymised explanatory note having been served on the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note) on 6 September 2019 in accordance with the Practice Note, and no notice of objection having been served by them

AND ON the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. Pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the SIAC Procedure Rules 2003 the appellant / applicant is to be anonymised, such that he shall be referred to only as “MAY” for all purposes in these proceedings;
  2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 there shall be no publication by any person of any matter which, directly, or indirectly, could lead to the identification of MAY as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission; and
  3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
  4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application.

Reasons

  1. The Commission is not in a position to make findings of fact about the material on which MAY relies in support of his application for anonymity. At this stage, because of the risks relied on by MAY, the Commission must assume that that material is, or might be, accurate.
  2. MAY applies for a review of the decision to refuse his application for naturalisation. The grounds for refusal include allegations that he is associated with extremism.
  3. His solicitor has researched activity by far-right groups in the area in which he lives. There is such activity, and it is submitted that that activity poses a risk to MAY and to his wife and family, were he identified.
  4. MAY has significant health problems, including severe heart disease, which he describes in his witness statement. He is registered disabled. He fears that the likely press intrusion if he were identified could bring on a heart attack. His wife has significant mental health problems, which she describes in hers. She suffers from panic attacks. She wears a hijab in public. He has a beard. They have already been the subjects of Islamophobic abuse and possibly vandalism in their local area.
  5. MAY has family in two other countries. He fears that if he identified, that could put them at risk, and that he would be put at risk if he were to travel to either country.
  6. Those risks justify the encroachment into the principle of open justice made by this order, and its interference with the article 10 rights of the media and of the public.