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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-003352

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

29 November 2023

Before:

Dan Kolinsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
MX

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by Claimant for anonymity, abridging time for the acknowledgment of service and case management directions
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s response (in GLD’s letter dated 21 November 2023)
ORDER by Dan Kolinsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. For the purposes of these proceedings the Claimant shall be referred to as “MX”.
  2. No person shall disclose or publish any document or information relating to these proceedings in such a manner as would or would be likely to identify the Claimant.
  3. Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6) no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  4. The Claimant has permission to rely on the translated witness statement attached to the application notice dated 13.11.23.

Reasons

  1. I am satisfied that an anonymity order should be made as requested by the Claimant.
  2. I grant permission for the Claimant to rely on the translated witness statement to comply with PD32 para 23.2. I am satisfied that no prejudice arises from this.
  3. I do not accede to the request that the time for the Defendant to file its acknowledgement should be abridged. There does not appear to be urgency relating to the specific circumstances of the Claimant. I do not consider that there is a justified basis for shortening the time allowed by the CPR 54 r8(2)(a) for the Defendant’s service of acknowledgment of service.
  4. I consider that it would be premature to make directions for interim relief before the matter has been considered on the papers following the acknowledgement of service. There appears to be no pressing urgency in terms of the Claimant’s individual circumstances.
  5. I note the comment in GLD’s response that time for acknowledging service should run from the service of further evidence. I make no order to that effect. The Defendant should respond to the claim in accordance with the 21 day time limit from service of the claim form as provided for in CPR 54.8(2)(a).