MG -v- The Secretary of State for Justice (anonymity order)

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000970

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

22 June 2025

Before:

Christopher Kennedy KC
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
MG

-v-

The Secretary of State for Justice

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY KC
SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  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 MG.

(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):

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) 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.

  1. Extensions of time

(a) The Defendant’s application for an extension of time for her Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance is granted.

(b) The Claimant’s applications for extensions of time for bringing the Claim and for his Reply are granted.

  1. Permission to apply for judicial review:

(a) Permission is granted on grounds 1 and 2 (quashing the decision, oral hearing).

(b) Permission is refused on ground 3 (procedural impropriety).

  1. Case Management Directions:

(a) The Defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.

(b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

(c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.

(d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and the Guidance on the Administrative Court website, not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard- copy versions of the hearing bundle.

(e) The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 21 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(f) The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument (maximum 25 pages), complying with CPR 54 PD para. 15 and the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide paras 20.1 to 20.3, not less than 14 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(g) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, 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, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.

(h) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day. If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

(i) Where permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission at a hearing. This must be done by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date on which this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.

OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

Anonymity

(1) The parties are in agreement that there should be an anonymity order in this case in the light of the Claimant’s history and circumstances. I have reviewed the reasons for their agreement which are set out within the papers available to me and I consider that this is an appropriate case for such an order.

The parties’ applications to extend time

(1) By an application dated 23 April 2025 the Defendant sought a prospective extension of time of 14 days to file her Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Resistance. The application was not opposed; the documents have been filed and I grant the extension sought.

(2) By an application dated 4 June 2025 the Claimant sought an extension of time to file his Reply, which, in turn, contained the basis for his application to extend time for bringing these proceedings. The Reply was served on 4 June 2025. The Summary Grounds of Resistance are dated 7 May 2025. Time for a Reply expired 7 days later so the Claimant is around 21 days out of time. The reason given by him is that the parties were in discussions. This is a retrospective application to extend time to which CPR 3.9 applies. I must first assess the seriousness and significance of the breach.
Whilst time limits are intended to be respected, the service of a Reply is not mandatory. significant. I find in the context of this case the delay was neither serious nor The Reply engages with the point taken in the summary grounds of defence and is intended to assist the court to determine it. I do not regard the reason for the failure as a strong one but the delay was relatively short and it has not obstructed the progress of the case. I accordingly allow the Claimant to rely on the contents of the Reply.

(3) The Reply addresses the point taken by the Defendant that the claim was brought out of time and not promptly. The Claimant’s response is that, although the decision may have been taken on 26 November 2024, he was unaware of it until 24 December 2024 when it was communicated to him. He could not obtain advice until after the holidays and there was an understandable lag in obtaining the file from his former solicitors who did not undertake public law work.

(4) The Claimant’s situation as a serving prisoner meant that he was not capable of ascertaining what the decision was until he was informed of it. If the date on which he found out about it was taken as the correct date, his claim was in time. I do not regard the delay as serious or significant in the context of his situation and I regard his explanations as satisfactory. In all the circumstances of the case it is appropriate that an extension be grant

Permission Ground 1
(5) Ground 1 is arguable:
(a) It is common ground that the Defendant proceeded under a mistake of fact as to a material aspect of the Claimant’s presentation, believing that his aggressive behaviour had led to a request by the COM for a ban on closed visits. It is arguable that that mistake compromised the decision which was in fact made;
(b) It is arguable that the same mistake compromised the report of the prison psychologist on whose evidence the decision maker relied;
(c) It is arguable that the contents of the letter dated 17 March 2025 from the Defendant demonstrates an unfair continued reliance on the error concerning the ban on closed visits, after evidence to the contrary had been drawn to the Defendant’s attention;
(d) It is arguable that the decision maker did not engage sufficiently with the evidence before him from Dr Beckley, the POM and the LAP

Permission Ground 2
(6) Ground 2 is arguable
(a) It is arguable that there were material facts going to the issue of risk which were in dispute on the papers, capable of being clarified by an oral hearing and that procedural fairness demanded that such a hearing take place.
(b) It is arguable that the differences in opinion over whether there was offence paralleling behaviour and whether the risk reduction had been significant over the period were sufficient and sufficiently central to make a decision without an oral hearing unfair.

Permission ground 3
(7) Ground 3 is not arguable
(a) There is no evidence in the body of the decision that non-disclosable security intelligence played a part in it. The Defendant has explained the nature of the available intelligence in her Summary Grounds of Resistance. It was not relevant to the decision.

Signed: DHCJ Christopher Kennedy KC
Date: 22/06/2025