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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2022-LON-002284

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

12 June 2025

Before:

Clare Padley (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King on the application of
MS

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for an anonymity order

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

ORDER BY CLARE PADLEY
(sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

  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 ‘MS’.
    (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) Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker and a recognised victim of trafficking who has received a concluded grounds decision. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.