Case No: CO/3486/2022
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
29 September 2022
Mr Jonathan Glasson KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
The King on the application of
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief and application for anonymity
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the response to the application for interim relief by the Defendant
ORDER by Mr Jonathan Glasson KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
- The Claimant’s application for an anonymity order is granted under CPR r. 39.2(4) and/or the general case management powers in CPR r. 3.1(2). The Claimant in this action shall have anonymity until further order. No report or publication of these proceedings shall directly or indirectly identify the Claimant. In the case title, the Claimant’s name shall be replaced by the initials “NH”.
- Pursuant to CPR r.5.4(c), a person not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the statement of case, judgment or order of the court records, only if the statement of case, judgment or order from the court has been anonymised.
- The Court file shall be clearly noted with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 29 September 2022 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
- Failure to comply with this anonymity order could lead to contempt of court proceedings.
5. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is adjourned.
6. The time limit for the Defendant serving her Acknowledgment of Service shall be abridged to 14 days. When serving her Acknowledgement of Service, the Defendant shall provide an update on its stated intention of relocating the Claimant and her family.
7. The Claimant shall have permission to respond to the Defendant’s update referred to in paragraph 7 within 3 days of service of the update and Acknowledgement of Service.
8. The papers shall thereafter be placed before a judge for determination of the applications for interim relief and for permission.
1. The Claimant is an asylum seeker. She and her family are accommodated by the Defendant in a single hotel room. The room is shared with her son who is aged 4 and who is severely disabled. It is also shared with the Claimant’s mother.
2. The case will involve consideration of the health and welfare of her child and the family’s personal circumstances and living conditions. It therefore engages the Claimant’s privacy rights under Article 8 and those of her son and her mother. Privacy is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant and her family and the integrity of her asylum claim.
3. Having considered these Article 8 rights, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is strictly necessary in order to protect her interests; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of her identity to justify interfering with her Article 8 rights and those of son and mother.
4. On 22 September 2022 the Claimant filed her application for judicial review and for an order for interim relief. The interim relief that she seeks is a mandatory order that within 7 days the Defendant relocates the Claimant and
her family to adequate ground floor dispersal accommodation within a reasonable distance of Great Ormond Street Hospital, pending the final determination of these judicial review proceedings.
5. On 27 September 2022 the Defendant filed a response to the application for interim relief in which she stated that “we are very mindful of the Claimant and her family’s circumstances but due to the limited housing stock within the London/South East area unfortunately, it will not be possible to move the Claimant and her family within 7 days. Instead, the Defendant will endeavour to move the Claimant and her family within 3 weeks”. On the basis that the claim was issued on 22 September that means that the Claimant should be relocated by 13 October.
6. Given the Defendant’s assurance (and her reasons for needing further time) I consider it appropriate for the application for a mandatory injunction to be adjourned. However, recognising the seriousness of this claim (particularly having regard to the severity of the disability of the Claimant’s son) it is necessary for the claim to be dealt with urgently.
7. Accordingly, I have directed that the time limit for serving the Acknowledgement of Service shall be abridged and that when serving that Acknowledgement of Service, the Defendant must update the Court as to progress in relocating the Claimant. That will enable the application for interim relief to be considered together with the application for permission.