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

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/0078/2023

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

9 January 2023

Before:

Mr Justice Choudhury

Between:

The King on the application of
MTTD

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

UPON READING the Claimant’s Claim form and statement of grounds, and the Claimant’s application for interim relief, it is ordered that:

  1. The Defendant secure accommodation for the Claimant forthwith, and in any event such as to be available for her use from the night of 10 January 2023 for a period of 14 nights or further order, pursuant to section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
  2. The Claimant be referred to in any report of these proceedings as “MTTD”, and no information be included in any report of these proceedings which enables the identification of the Claimant.
  3. The Defendant shall file and serve her Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds within 7 days of this Order;
  4. There be liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 48 hours’ written notice.
  5. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. Bearing in mind that there is little material before the Court setting out the Defendant’s position, and on the assumption that the Court has, pursuant to the duty of candour, been given all relevant information about the Claimant’s position, it does appear to me that strong prima facie case has been made out in respect of Ground 1.
  2. The Defendant has had ample time to comply with the relevant duties and has been repeatedly reminded of the Claimant’s imminent street homelessness as a result of the bail order coming into effect on 5 January 2023. Notwithstanding that, the Claimant was released without the necessary arrangements having been made. Had it not been for the intervention of a charity (Medical Justice), the Claimant, a vulnerable female, would already have been rendered street homeless. The charity has been able, exceptionally, to extend the provision of hotel accommodation until tomorrow, but beyond that there is no provision and no indication from the Defendant of any being forthcoming or any substantive reason for refusing accommodation. There is nothing to suggest that this Claimant could, even for a few days, make her own temporary arrangements. The likelihood is that, if an order were not made, the Claimant would in fact be rendered street homeless in Birmingham.
  3. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the relatively high threshold for the making of an order for mandatory interim relief is made out.
  4. However, it is not appropriate, in the absence of any explanation or response from the Defendant, to make the order for a an extended period pending the determination of the claim. The order is time limited to 14 days or further order, by which time, the Defendant ought to be able to clarify her position.
  5. Ground 2 appears at this stage to have less merit but it does not bear as strongly on the application for interim relief.