MM -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Administrative CourtHigh CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
8 September 2022
Mr Justice Wall
In the matter of an application for judicial review
The Queen on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Wall
1. The Defendant must by 9pm tonight (8 September 2022) and until further order provide the Claimant with accommodation in a single room.
2. The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order at paragraph 1 above on 48 hours written notice to the Claimant.
3. Any application made under paragraph 2 is to be referred to a High Court Judge or Deputy High Court Judge for consideration within 48 hours after issue.
4. There shall be an anonymity order. The Claimant is to be referred to only by the initials MM unless and until any further order is made. Any documents disclosed to a third party are to be redacted to ensure the Claimant’s identity is not revealed.
5. Costs reserved.
This is a mandatory injunction. Breach of paragraph 1 this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 2 to vary or discharge, the order at paragraph 1 must be complied with unless or until such an order is made.
1. The Claimant was told that he was to receive accommodation in a single room. This was on the basis that he had significant mental health difficulties.
2. Thereafter he was taken to a hotel and told that he was expected to share with another person. The Defendant has already recognised that this is inappropriate.
3. The result has been that the Claimant has become street homeless, self-harmed and hospitalised. He is due to be discharged from hospital this evening.
4. The Defendant must rectify this position with alacrity. She will of course have liberty to apply to vary if the order if it is thought to be inappropriate but on the limited information available to me there is a serious issue to tried and the balance of convenience is clearly in favour of ensuring that the Claimant has available to him the type of accommodation deemed by the Defendant as being suitable.