MM -v- Peterborough City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-002080

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 October 2025

Before:

Sarah Clarke KC,
sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
MM
(by his litigation friend, Afnan Salah Omer Khalid of the Refugee Council)

-v-

Peterborough City Council

Order

On an application by the Claimant for permission to bring a claim for judicial review and anonymity order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER BY SARAH CLARKE KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

  1. By 24 October 2024 the parties are to update the Court with the following information:

(a) Whether the Defendant’s further reconsideration of its 13 March 2025 decision which the Defendant asserts it agreed on 13 June 2025 to undertake has now taken place and if so, with what result.
(b) If it has not taken place, the Defendant is to provide an explanation of why not and confirm the date when reconsideration will take place.
(c) The parties are to provide an update on whether the Defendant’s offer on 9 June 2025 to accommodate the Claimant on an interim basis was accepted and if so, whether the Defendant continues to accommodate the Claimant and intends to so continue.

  1. Following the parties response to this Order, the papers will be put before a Judge for consideration of the issue of permission.

3. 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 MM.

(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.

REASONS

(1) The Defendant’s SGR asserts that the claim is academic and that the Claimant has an available alternative remedy – namely the Defendant’s reconsideration of its age assessment. If that reassessment has now been completed, then this would plainly be relevant to consideration of permission. Given the time that has now elapsed since this claim was filed (13 June 2025) and the Claimant’s Reply (21 July 2025), it seems likely that this reassessment will now have taken place.

(2) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker who asserts that he is a child. He has a pending asylum claim in respect of which he is entitled to anonymity. There is some medical evidence which suggests vulnerabilities. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

Signed: SARAH CLARKE KC
Date: 9 October 2025