OH -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department and others (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2024-LON-003402

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

8 November 2024

Before:

Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge

Between:

The King
on the application of
OH

-v-

(1) The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) The Director of Public Prosecutions
(Defendants)

and

The Chief Constable of Kent Police
Secretary of State for Justice
Lord Chancellor
The Governor of HMP Elmey
The Governor of HMP Lewes
The Folkestone Youth Justice Service
(Interested Parties)

Anonymity order

On interlocutory applications by the Claimant for permission for an extension of time, expedition, joinder and anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant which includes an application for anonymity

ORDER by Deputy High Court Judge Karen Ridge

  1. The Claimant in this matter is entitled to anonymity until further order and there must be substituted for all purposes in this claim in place of references to the Claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, reference to “OH”.

  2. A non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document from the court file other than this order (duly anonymised) without the permission of the Court. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant.

  3. A non-party may not obtain any copy statement of case or other document from the Court file unless it has been edited (anonymised) in accordance with this direction.

  4. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and s.11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, the publication or disclosure of the identity of the Claimant or of any material tending to identify the Claimant shall be prohibited.

  5. The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 8 November 2024 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.”

  6. The Defendant or any non-party affected by this anonymity order may on 7 days’ notice to set it aside or vary it.

  7. The costs of obtaining this order shall be costs in the case.

  8. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to judicialwebupdates@ejudiciary.uk

Reasons

  1. This judicial review claim relates to the lawfulness of an initial age assessment conducted on 17 September 2023 and other decisions made subsequent to that decision. Namely decisions taken between the 17 September 2023 and 13 December 2023 to arrest the Claimant and prosecute him without further age assessments being undertaken. There is a further challenge to the practices and policies of the first and second Defendants in relation to cursory initial age assessments being treated as conclusive in criminal investigations and procedures.
  1. The Claimant’s case is that at all times he was a child, aged 16, and that he fled Sudan to escape persecution. After serving a term of 6 months imprisonment, he was released on licence. Subsequently the Claimant was assessed, and the Claimant became a looked after child on 15 January 2024.

  2. The claim raises human rights issues related to deprivation of liberty and alleged breaches of Articles 3, 8 and/or 14 ECHR.

  3. There is a presumption in favour of anonymity in cases involving asylum seekers, see Practice Note (Court of Appeal: Asylum and Immigration Cases) [2006] 1 WLR 2461.

  4. Having considered the Article 8 rights of the Claimant and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, as well as the open justice principle, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is strictly necessary in order to secure the proper administration of justice and protect the interests of the Claimant; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of his identity to justify interfering with his Article 8 rights.

Signed: Karen Ridge

Date: 08/11/2024