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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-002657

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

9 June 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Coppel

Between:

The King
on the application of
MSK
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

    ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Coppel:

    1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
    2. 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 MSK.

    (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

    (ii) to the identification of the Claimant;

    (iii) 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;

    (iv) 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 Claim challenges (a) a decision of the Defendant dated 4 June 2026 refusing to reconsider a decision of 26 February 2025 that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was a victim of trafficking (“the NRG decision”), (b) a decision dated 18 May 2026 refusing to revoke an order that he be deported to Poland (“the deportation decision”), and (c) a decision dated 28 May 2026 to set directions for his removal to Poland.
    2. The Claimant was convicted in 2017 of serious drugs smuggling offences which he had committed in June 2015. In his sentencing remarks, the trial judge described the Claimant’s role in the smuggling operation as being that of a trusted figure, high up in the hierarchy, whose motivation was financial gain. He was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment and subsequently served with a deportation order. In May 2024, he was transferred to immigration detention and directions were first set for his removal in January 2025, following an unsuccessful claim for asylum.
    3. In February 2025, the Claimant made allegations which were thought to raise suspicions that he had been a victim of trafficking. He had alleged that there came a point in the drug smuggling operation, on the day he was arrested, where he felt compelled to carry bags, which he was unaware contained heroin, from his lorry to courier vehicles, when he did not wish to do so. He was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”) for a “reasonable grounds” decision. On 26 February 2025, the Competent Authority decided that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the Claimant was a victim of trafficking. The critical reasoning in the NRG decision is compressed but the fundamental point is clear: the allegations now made by the Claimant were inconsistent with the findings of the trial judge and were rejected as not credible. The 26 February 2025 decision was reconsidered on 14 October and 19 December 2025 and most recently on 4 June 2026, but has been maintained.
    4. There is a wealth of psychological and psychiatric evidence attesting to the Claimant’s poor state of mental health, and of continuing physical health problems, the most serious of which were caused by his swallowing a battery shortly before a previous attempt to deport him.
    5. The Claimant seeks interim relief preventing his removal pending the resolution of this Claim and requiring his release from detention in the meantime.
    6. The Claim does not disclose a serious issue to be tried such as to ground interim relief to prevent the Claimant’s removal.
    7. Ground 1 is a rationality challenge to the 4 June 2026 decision not to reconsider the NRG decision. The pleaded basis for irrationality is that neither the Claimant’s account of trafficking nor subsequent “corroborating evidence” was before the trial judge. Much of the evidence put to the decision-maker prior to the 6 June 2026 decision had already been considered in previous reconsiderations, including the fact that the Claimant had not claimed to have been exploited or trafficked at his trial. There was no requirement for the Defendant to consider this point again but it is not, in any event, an arguable basis for a rationality challenge. It raises but does not answer the important question as to why the Claimant had not put forward at trial an account which, if accepted, would obviously have served at least to mitigate his sentence, if not also to provide a defence to the charges against him. Whether he put it forward at trial or not, the trial Judge plainly did not believe that the Claimant had been acting under duress.
    8. As for the subsequent evidence, this is to the effect that the Claimant’s psychological symptoms, such as PTSD, are of a type commonly suffered by people who have been trafficked (although also by persons who have had other types of traumatic experience). It is of very limited value in proving an allegation that the Claimant was forced to carry out work against his will in June 2015 in particular when that allegation was inconsistent with judicial findings at the Claimant’s trial. The 6 June 2026 decision is not arguably irrational in finding this evidence insufficient to call into question the previous conclusion that the Claimant’s allegation of trafficking is contrary to the trial judge’s findings and so not credible.
    9. Ground 2 is a Tameside claim, arguing that the Defendant has irrationally failed to investigate the Claimant’s belated allegation of trafficking. However, that allegation has in fact been considered pursuant to the NRM processes, on multiple occasions. It seems that the Claimant has been unable to produce any direct evidence to support his allegations. lt is not arguable that the Defendant was obliged to investigate them any further before declining to alter the NRG decision.
    10. Ground 3, breach of Article 4 ECHR, stands or falls with Grounds 1 and 2. The Defendant has concluded that there is no credible suspicion that the Claimant was trafficked, based on the findings at his trial, so Article 4 is not engaged.
    11. Ground 4 complains that the deportation decision failed to take adequate account of the risk which removal poses to the Claimant, including medical evidence that he is not fit to fly and that he previously self-harmed (by swallowing a battery) in order to prevent removal. The Defendant was required to apply rules in Part 13 of the Immigration Rules whereby, because the Claimant had committed an offence which caused serious harm, he would be deported unless he could satisfy exacting tests as to the impact on his private or family life (which he cannot satisfy) or if there were “very compelling circumstances” amounting to breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is no case pursued under Article 8 but nor does ground 4 allege that deportation would be in breach of the Claimant’s Article 3 rights – it is a public law challenge to the reasoning in the deportation decision. In any event, the deportation decision specifically addressed the issue of risk to health during removal (in §40) and is clear that appropriate steps, by way of an escort, would be taken to protect the Claimant. There is no challenge to, and no answer to, the important point made in the deportation decision (eg §§41-48) that mental health treatment will be available to the Claimant in Poland should it be required.
    12. Ground 5 is an unparticularised challenge that removing the Claimant would be in breach of the Defendant’s policy on removal because he is not fit to fly. Insofar as that challenge can be understood, it is inconsistent with the extract from the relevant policy on which it apparently relies (set out in §51 of the Statement of Facts and Grounds) and with the assurances given in the deportation decision that appropriate steps will be taken to protect the Claimant from self-harm.
    13. Ground 6 is a challenge to the legality of the Claimant’s continued detention which can have no bearing on the grant of injunctive relief to prevent his removal (which will entail his leaving detention).
    14. Even if I had been persuaded that there was a serious issue to be tried in relation to the decision of 6 June 2026, I would not have granted injunctive relief on that account as the balance of convenience would favour his removal. There is a very strong public interest in his deportation and his claim that he had been a victim of trafficking can be pursued from Poland if he so wishes. The position may well have been different if there were an arguable challenge to the deportation decision but, for the reasons I have given, there is not.
    15. The Claimant has legitimate concerns about adverse consequences for him should his identity as the Claimant in these proceedings be publicised. I have made an anonymity order accordingly.

    Signed: Mr Justice Coppel
    Dated: 9/6/2026