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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: CO/571/2023

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

23 June 2023


Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


The King on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department


On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order and by the parties for a consent order
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by Richard Clayton KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, CPR rule 5.4D-5.4D and Rule 39.2, with effect from the date of this order and until further order:
    a. There shall be substituted for all purposes in this case, in place of references to the Claimant’s name, reference to “MRA”;
    b. There shall be no publication of any name, address, picture or other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in these proceedings,
    c. “Publication” means communication to the public or any section of the public. It includes publication in a newspaper or broadcast, or on the internet, by any person;
    d. The Defendants, and any party served with or given notice of the anonymity order, has permission to apply to discharge or vary that order. Any application for that purpose must be made in writing, on notice to all parties;
    e. Any application for permission to inspect or obtain a non-anonymised version of a document must be made on notice to the Claimant and in accordance with CPR r.5.4C(6); and
  2. Upon agreement between the parties it is ordered that:
    a. these proceedings are stayed until 23 June 2023 to allow the parties to engage in correspondence with a view to trying to resolve the issues raised in the claim.
    b. The Defendant must use all reasonable endeavours to provide responses to the Claimants pre-action protocol letters no later than 22 June 2023.
    c. If agreement cannot be reached the Claimants have permission to file amended Claim Form and grounds and additional evidence, which are to be filed and served no later than 14 July 2023.
    d. The Defendant is to serve an Acknowledgement of Service and any accompanying evidence within 21 days of service of the Claimants’ amended claim.
    e. Costs in the case.


  1. An anonymity order is justified and necessary to protect the Claimant’s interests on the basis that:
    a. The Claimants have made a claim for international protection: which remains pending for substantive consideration before the Defendant. As a matter of course, the cases of asylum claimants are anonymised in the immigration tribunals and the anonymity routinely afforded to asylum-seekers should not be compromised by these proceedings.
    b. Disclosure of the Claimants’ identity will put them and their family members at risk of harm: there is a potential risk for the Claimants, if their identity were to be known, that either they in the event of his return to their country of origin, or their family members in any event, who remain in the country of origin, would be subjected to treatment amounting to a breach of Article 2 or 3 ECHR in the event that their names and substance of their claim were made public.
    c. The nature of the proceedings is likely to attract press interest: The issue of migrant boat crossings is one that has attracted considerable adverse media attention, as to has matters relating to asylum seekers more generally. There is therefore the possibility that this claim will attract press attention. Pursuant to CPR r.5.4C, the statements of case, including the detailed Statement of Facts and Grounds and Summary Grounds of Defence, will be publicly accessible on the request of a non-party, including the press. If the Claimants’ identities becomes known, there are possible risks of physical violence and harassment contrary to Articles 3 and 8 ECHR.
    d. Accordingly, non-disclosure of the Claimants’ identities is necessary and justified and is granted in accordance with the principles in Re Guardian News and Media Limited [2010] UKSC 1 [2010] 2 AC 697.