MNN -v- Home Secretary (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-003393

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

22 July 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

Between:

THE KING on the application of
MNN

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant, dated 21 July 2026, for (1) anonymity; (2) urgent interim relief; (3) disclosure; and (4) expedition

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by The Honourable Mrs Justice Ellenbogen DBE

  1. The identity of the Claimant in these proceedings shall not be published.
  2. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the name or address of the Claimant or any other matters which could lead to his identification.
  3. In any report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation to these proceedings, the Claimant shall be referred to as “MNN” and any matters which could lead to his identification shall be redacted.
  4. Pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4C:
    a. a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a claim form, judgment or order from the court records only if the same has been anonymised and redacted in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Order;
    b. if a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies for permission to obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be made on at least 7 days’ written notice to the Claimant;
    c. any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or revoke paragraphs 1 to 4(b) of this Order, provided that any such application is made on written notice to the Claimant’s solicitors and that no fewer than 3 days’ prior written notice of the intention to make such an application is given.
  5. The orders made at paragraphs 1 to 4 above are subject to review by the Court of its own motion, on notice to the parties.
  6. This Order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r.39.2(5).
  7. The Claimant’s applications for urgent interim relief, disclosure and expedition are refused.
  8. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. This matter is before me as ‘immediates’ judge.
  2. The Claimant is a Brazilian national who has been subject to immigration detention since 10 June 2026. On 17 July 2026, the Defendant issued a negative reasonable grounds decision (’the NRG Decision’), stating that, owing to the identified inconsistencies in the Claimant’s account, his credibility had been damaged to the extent that his claim to have been trafficked could not be believed and had been rejected. The NRG Decision states that it has been decided that the reconsideration policy applies in the Claimant’s case — he can request one reconsideration of the NRG Decision which must be provided as soon as possible.
  3. By his claim for judicial review, advanced in person, the Claimant seeks to challenge the NRG Decision and his continued detention ‘notwithstanding unresolved modern slavery representations, and active reconsideration process, outstanding further evidence and the absence of any disclosed removal directions, confirmed flight, operational removal window or quantified assessment showing that removal is realistically achievable within a defined reasonable period.’ He seeks interim relief staying his removal, and requiring immediate review of his continued detention; expedition of his claim and related disclosure; and anonymity. Although a pre-action letter was sent to the Defendant at an earlier stage (a copy of which has not been provided), no pre-action correspondence has been sent in connection with the NRG Decision and any allegedly related effect on the lawfulness of the Claimant’s detention.
  4. Despite references throughout the bundle to the Claimant’s language difficulties and need for an interpreter, the claim is written in sophisticated English, albeit having the appearance of an adapted template, or AI-produced/assisted document. The only underlying material provided is the NRG Decision. No documentation has been provided relating to detention. By way of example only, it is said that the Claimant is ‘recorded as an Adult at Risk Level 1’, however, there is no clinical evidence provided and the NRG Decision records that the Claimant had stated in his screening interview that he had no physical or mental health concerns, consistent with his Detention Induction Team Record, and that, in his asylum interview record, it was noted that he had claimed to have suffered from anxiety but had not been prescribed any medication, nor had he been formally diagnosed.
  5. In the absence of (1) any supporting evidence, and (2) compliance with the pre-action protocol in relation to the NRG Decision and ongoing detention in its light, and having regard to the fact that the Claimant has been given a right of reconsideration in the course of which he can raise the matters which are said to render the NRG Decision unlawful, pending the outcome of which he will not be removed from the United Kingdom, I do not consider that any of the relief sought (other than anonymity) is appropriate as matters stand. Should any decision on reconsideration itself give rise to a claim and a suitably evidenced associated application for interim relief, the latter can be considered on its merits at that time.
  6. Subject to the proviso in paragraph 5, I have granted anonymity at this stage, on the basis of the Claimant’s asserted forced criminality and potential exposure to reprisal. The potentially competing rights to freedom of expression and a fair trial (the principle of open justice) are protected by the liberty to apply provision at paragraph 4(c) of my orders (which would extend to representatives of the Press and other media).