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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000136

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

20 March 2025

Before:

Robert Palmer KC

Between:

The King on the application of
MB

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

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; and
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as MB.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4), 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.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £2,684.
  4. Further provision as to costs:
    (a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):
    (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:
    – the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
    (b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):
    (i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:
    – the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
    – permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing
    (ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:
    – the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

Reasons

  1. Anonymity: The Claimant was an asylum seeker who has now been returned to Albania. By this claim he continues to maintain that he is at risk. Notwithstanding the refusal of permission, it is appropriate to grant anonymity.
  2. Transfer: The Lord Chief Justice’s Direction does not require this application for permission to apply for judicial review to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), given that the claim includes a challenge to the lawfulness of the Claimant’s detention.
  3. Permission:
    (a) As to Ground 1, the Defendant considered the claimed risk of re-trafficking in the context of the Claimant’s individual circumstances, and concluded that he would not be at risk [95]. The Defendant then went on to consider sufficiency of protection, including in respect of his status as a victim of trafficking [95]. The conclusions at [96] that the authorities in Albania would be both willing and able to provide the Claimant with protection extended equally to any risk which arose of re-trafficking, as well as all other risks that had been considered. Similarly, the conclusions at [97] as to internal relocation were also reached with express regard to the Claimant’s position as a male victim of trafficking. The Reasons for Certification at [105]-[106] expressly referred back to the earlier conclusions as to sufficiency of protection and internal relocation, in each case as applied to those in the Claimant’s situation and given his personal circumstances. There is nothing in Ground 1 which alleges any error in the Defendant’s conclusions on sufficiency of protection and internal relocation. Each provided an independent reason as to why the protection and human rights claim had been found to be clearly unfounded. Absent challenge to those conclusions, there is no arguable basis upon which any appeal could have succeeded.
    (b) Ground 2 is dependent upon (a) Ground 1 above, and (b) the assertion at SFG §§69-70 that the Defendant failed to consider the Claimant to be an Adult at Risk when detained, or at all until 9 January 2025. That is manifestly incorrect, as appears from the Immigration Factual History that was served on the Claimant on 17 December 2024 (the day of his detention): see [113], where under “Safeguarding Considerations” it is recorded “Positive conclusive grounds decision was made on the NRM referral. [The Claimant] is therefore assessed as AAR Level 2.” The AAR Level 2 assessment was maintained on 9 January 2025 following the Rule 35 report. By that stage, the Claimant’s removal pursuant to the Deportation Order was only 7 days away. There is no arguable basis for contending that his detention pending such removal was unlawful.