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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002995

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

30 June 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Poole

Between:

The King
on the application of
MLF
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent permission and interim remedies including release from detention and an injunction preventing his imminent removal

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and bundle for the Upper Tribunal, written submissions of the Defendant and Defendant’s bundle

ORDER BY THE HON. Mr JUSTICE POOLE

  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 MLF.

(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. Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions:

(a) The Claimant’s applications for:

(i) an immediate emergency interim injunction to stay execution of removal
directions; and

(ii) a mandatory order for his immediate release from immigration detention

are refused.

  1. Costs reserved.

Reasons

(1) Mandatory/prohibitory injunction:

    a. The Claimant seeks judicial review of the decision to continue to detain him at Brook House IRC and to enforce removal directions scheduled for 30 June 2026 (tomorrow).

    b. He seeks:
    i. an immediate emergency interim injunction to stay execution of the removal directions;
    ii. a mandatory order for his immediate release
    iii. an order quashing the Defendant’s inadmissibility decisions;
    iv. a formal declaration of unlawful detention
    v. and an order prohibiting the setting of any future removal directions or orders separating from his wife and children (said to live in England).

    c. His grounds amount to these:
    i. The Defendant misapplied s80(b)(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (NIAA) treating it as a mandatory requirement to find his claim inadmissible if he had a connection to a safe country (it not being argued that he did not have such a connection) – the country being France.
    ii. The Defendant failed to comply with the Adult at Risk Guidance in that he should have been treated as being at level 3.
    iii. There was a wholesale failure to conduct a proportionality assessment under Art 8 on the basis that he had a wife and children living in England.

    d. I sit as the Immediates Judge in the Administrative Court to consider the very urgent applications for interim relief -the injunctions/orders at b(i) and (ii) above.

    e. The Defendant has provided written submissions on a very urgent basis, contending that:

    i. No serious issue to be tried arises on any pleaded ground;

    ii. The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours refusal of interim relief, having regard to (i) the compelling public interest in deterring dangerous Channel crossings; (ii) the statutory presumptions of safety under Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004; (iii) the Treaty safeguards and wider evidence as to the systems in France; and (iv) the available mechanisms for pursuing judicial review from France.

    f. The Defendant relies on statements of a generic nature including from Daniel Hobbs dated 26 September 2925 as set out at paragraph 5 of the submissions.

    g. The chronology set out in the Defendant’s submissions is adopted. A Rule 35 report of a medical examination was produced, dated 31 May 2026. The initial inadmissibility decision was dated 18 June 2026. The Claimant was given notice of intention to remove and notice of departure details. The claim for judicial review was dated 20 Jun e 2026. The Defendant made a further decision maintaining the decision that the asylum claim was inadmissible and to return him to France on 25 June 2026.

    h. The inadmissibility decision did not demonstrate any error of law in the application of NIAA s80B. It did not treat inadmissibility as mandatory once a connection to a safe country was found. The Claimant’s imminent removal was relevant. The reasons provided by the Defendant cannot reasonably be read otherwise. There is no dispute that the Claimant has a connection to France, nor could there be, given the findings set out in the decision letter which the Defendant was clearly entitled to reach. The Defendant clearly took into account the R35 report.

    i. The R35 Report did not conclude that the claimant would be likely to suffer harm from continued detention. He was properly categorised by the Defendant as being at level 2 not level 3 as he claims (applying the Adults at Risk Guidance).

    j. The Claimant’s claims of a family life were rejected. He provided insufficient evidence and he had (twice) confirmed he had no spouse on entry to the UK.

    k. The Claimant has not rebutted the presumption that France is a safe third county and has not argued that it is not safe nor that the authorities there could not protect the Claimant against his mental health or against torture or trafficking.

    l. Detention is pending imminent removal and began only on 7 May 2026.There would be a high risk of absconsion. Detention is in compliance with the Hardial Singh principles.

    m. There are no outstanding matters regarding trafficking unresolved. There is a strong balance of convenience in favour of refusing interim relief as sought on the grounds set out by the Defendant (above). Further, there is no “particular vulnerability” of the sort recognised in Aya v SSHD [2026] EWHC 552 (Admin) per Sheldon J. Interim relief as sought both in relation to release from detention and prohibition on removal, would interfere with the operation of the statutory indivisibility regime which appears to have been fully complied with, and the Treaty arrangements. The Claimant has failed to establish any exceptional vulnerability

    n. The Claimant can pursue his claim for judicial review from France and has been given information accordingly.

    Signed: Mr JUSTICE Poole
    Date: 30/06/26