MC -v- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-002133

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 November 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
MC
(Claimant)

-v-

Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
(Defendant)

(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(HO ref: C1366694)
(2) News Group Newspapers Limited
(Interested Parties)

Order

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 and the Acknowledgments of service filed by the Defendant and Interested Parties;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review of the Upper Tribunal’s decision, dated 22 May 2024, to lift the anonymity order, is refused.
  2. The Claimant’s application to preserve the anonymity order in the ongoing proceedings in the Upper Tribunal, and in this application for judicial review, is refused, subject to the interim orders in paragraph 3 below.
  3. The anonymity order shall remain in place for 28 days from the date of this order. No later than 14 days after the date of this order, a Judge shall consider on the papers whether the anonymity order should remain in place pending any application by the Claimant to renew his application for permission to apply for judicial review, or whether it can finally be lifted.
  4. Liberty to apply on 2 days notice to the other parties.
  5. The Claimant do pay the First Interested Party’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service, which are summarily assessed in the sum of £724. This is a final order unless within 14 days of the date of this order the Claimant files with the Court and serves on the First Interested Party a notice of objection setting out the reasons why they should not be required to pay costs (either as required by the costs order, or at all). If the Claimant files and serves notice of objection, the First Interested Party may, within 14 days of the date it is served, file and serve submissions in response. The Claimant may, within 7 days of the date on which the First Interested Party’s response is served, file and serve submissions in reply. A Judge will then make a final determination on costs, either on the papers, or at a hearing of any renewed application for permission.
  6. The Claimant do pay the Second Interested Party’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service, to be summarily assessed upon the filing of a statement of costs by the Second Interested Party, within 14 days of the date of this order, and the filing of any objection by the Claimant, within 14 days of service of the statement of costs. A Judge will then make a final determination on costs, either on the papers, or at a hearing of any renewed application for permission.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant had the benefit of an anonymity order in the First-tier Tribunal proceedings, but the anonymity order was lifted by the Upper Tribunal (“UT”) on 22 May 2024. The UT suspended its order for 21 days to enable the Claimant to apply for judicial review. When the Claimant applied for judicial review and urgent interim relief, the anonymity order was preserved by the Court, by my order dated 24 June 2024, until the determination of the permission application or further order.
  2. I have refused the application for permission to apply for judicial review because I do not consider that the Claimant’s grounds are arguable or have any realistic prospect of success.
  3. I bear in mind that the UT proceedings are ongoing, as his protection appeal on human rights grounds is to be re-heard in the UT, following a finding that the First-tier Tribunal made an error of law in allowing the Claimant’s appeal.
  4. In my view, the UT has not arguably misdirected itself on the relevant legal principles. It has made its decision on the facts of the Claimant’s case, which it has considered in detail in the course of the appeal proceedings.
  5. It has concluded that, if his appeal based on Articles 2 and 3 ECHR succeeds, he will be able to remain in the UK where there is no real and immediate risk to his life or his family. If, on the other hand, his appeal does not succeed, and he is returned to Albania, his identification in these proceedings will not give rise to a materially increased risk to life for him or his family beyond the risk that already exists, because he has been the subject of media publicity on numerous occasions and his identity, as a gang member found guilty of murder and terrorist offences, is well-known. The UT considered the benefits of confidentiality for the Claimant and his family, applying common law principles, and it concluded that in the circumstances of this case the balance should be struck in favour of open justice and transparency.
  6. The UT is better placed than this Court to assess the evidence of risk, and the extent to which the Claimant’s identity is already in the public domain. In my judgment, its reasoning and its findings do not disclose any arguable error of law.

Signed: Mrs Justice Lang
Dated: 22.11.24