NAM -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/1392/2022

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

29 April 2022


The Honourable Mrs Justice Collins Rice


The Queen on the application of NAM


Secretary of State for the Home Department

Secretary of State for Defence

UPON the Claimant’s application of 20th April 2022
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Collins Rice
1. The Claimant’s application for anonymity is granted. The Claimant is to be referred to in these proceedings as ‘NAM’ and there is to be no publication of the name of the Claimant or any information capable of leading to the disclosure of the identity of the Claimant in connection with these proceedings.
2. The application for permission for judicial review is to be placed before a Judge for determination on the papers as soon as possible after either (a) the filing and service of the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service or (b) the expiry of 14 days after service of the Claimant’s claim form, whichever is sooner.
3. The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or set aside this Order on giving at least 48 hours’ notice to all other parties.

I am persuaded, on the materials the Claimant has provided, that an order for non-disclosure of the Claimant’s identity is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice, and in order to protect the Claimant’s interests (CPR 39.2(4)). He raises a sufficient case as to the danger in which he and his family would otherwise be placed.
The substance of the claim raises issues about delay. The Order provides for a degree of
expedition. That is without prejudice to due consideration of the merits of the issues raised,
but in order to allow those merits to be considered promptly and without exacerbating any
delay that might be considered to be arguably undue.
The Claimant sought further directions in the event that permission for judicial review is
granted. It seems to me, however, that it would be preferable in that event for the Judge
giving permission to consider any further directions at that point, with the assistance (should
that prove desirable) of both parties.

Mrs Justice Collins Rice