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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-002501

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

2 April 2025

Before:

Judge O’Connor (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Between:

The King on the application of
1) OOA, a child
(2) CJW, a child
(3) MIA, a child

(by their litigation friend, Maddie Harris)

-v-

(1) Secretary of State for the Home Department
(2) Chief Constable of Kent Police
(3) National Crime Agency

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants and the Defendants

ORDER by Judge O’Connor (sitting as a Judge of the High Court)

Anonymity Applications

1. The ‘anonymity’ applications made by MIA and CJW in the Claim Form, and by OOA on 2 December 2024, are GRANTED pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A-5.4D and Rule 39.2, with effect from the date of this order until further order
(a) Insofar as this is not already attended to, there shall be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the name of the current and former Claimants, reference to “OOA”, “CJW” and “MIA”;
(b) In so far as any Statement of Case, Judgment, Order or other documents to which anyone might have access pursuant to CPR Rule 5.4A–D does not comply with paragraph (a) above, the Claimant’s Solicitors have permission to file with the Court copies of any such document adjusted so that it does comply. Such copies are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant original;
(c) There shall be no publication of any name, address, picture or other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants as being the Claimants or former Claimant in these proceedings;
(d) In paragraph 1(c) “publication” means communication to the public or any section of the public. It includes publication in a newspaper or broadcast, or on the internet, by any person;
(e) The Defendants or any interested party (whether or not a party to the proceedings), may apply to discharge or vary the order. Any to do so must be made in writing, on no less than 7 days notice to all parties or former parties.

MIA’s applications

2. MIA’s application of 2 December 2024 (sealed on 5 December 2024) to withdraw his claim is GRANTED

3. MIA’s application 2 December 2024 (sealed 5 December 2024) that there should be no order as to costs in relation to the bringing of the claim is REFUSED. The issue of costs in relation to MIA’s participation in the proceedings is reserved, save that insofar as is appropriate there shall be a detailed assessment of the MIA’s publicly funded costs.

MIA & CJWs joint applications

4. The application dated 29 August 2024 (sealed 3 September 2024) for an extension of time to 26 September 2024 to file and serve a Reply to the first Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds is GRANTED.

5. The application dated 2 December 2024 (sealed 5 December 2024) to add the Chief Constable of Kent and the National Crime Agency as Defendants is GRANTED

6. The application dated 2 December 2024 (sealed 5 December) for permission to file and serve an Amended Claim Form and Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds is GRANTED

OOA’S application

7. OOA’s application of 2 December 2024 (sealed 5 December 2024) that OOA be added as a Claimant to these proceedings is GRANTED

MIA and OOA’s joint applications

8. The application of 23 January 2025 for an extension of time to file a Reply to the first and second Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and permission for the Reply to exceed 5 pages is GRANTED

First Defendant’s application

9. The first Defendant’s application of 15 August 2024 for an extension of time to 22 August 2024 to file and serve an Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence is GRANTED.

Second Defendant’s application

10. The second Defendant’s application of 19 December 2024 for an extension of time to 17 January 2024 to file an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence is GRANTED

Third Defendant’s application

11. The third Defendant’s application of 19 December 2024 for an extension of time to 17 January 2024 to file an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence is GRANTED

Other Case Management Directions

12. The first Defendant is given permission to file amended Summary Grounds of Defence to address the amended Statement of Facts and Grounds, by no later than 14 days from the date of this Order.

13. The second and third Defendants are given to permission to file amended Summary Grounds of Defence to address the substance of the grounds in the Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds (Grounds 1 to 5), by no later than 14 days from the date of this Order.

14. The Claimants are given permission to file and serve a Reply to any Amended Summary Grounds of Defence lodged by the Defendants, by no later than 21 days from the date of this Order.

15. This matter should be put before a judge or deputy judge on the papers on the first available date after 2 May 2025.

Reasons

  1. There are a significant number of interlocutory applications on file (going as far back as the application for anonymity made in the Claim Form) which have not thus far been determined by the Court. The parties have generally taken a pragmatic approach to these applications, and the proceedings have continued in the absence of their determination.
  2. I have determined the outstanding applications but, in my conclusion, the court is not yet at the stage where it can consider the issue of permission. For this reason, I have issued further case management directions to get these proceedings to the stage where permission can be considered.
  3. The first Defendant has not addressed the Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds. The first Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence were lodged prior to the addition of OOA as a Clamant, and prior to the filing of the Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds.
  4. Neither the second nor third Defendant has addressed the substance of the claim in their Summary Grounds of Defence. The Second Defendant provides insight as why it did not do so, indicating that absence a decision on the application for an extension of time to file the Summary Grounds, it would comply with the period identified in the CPR, but could only do so by addressing the timeliness issue. A later letter also raised the same forum issue as had been raised by the third Defendant in its Summary Grounds.
  5. I am concerned to ensure that the Court’s delays in processing the parties’ applications, has not caused prejudice. For this reason, I provide the first Defendant with an opportunity to amend its Summary Grounds of Defence to address the Amended Statement of Facts and Grounds. I also provide both the second and third Defendants with an opportunity to amend their Summary Grounds of Defence to incorporate any submissions they wish to make on the substantive grounds of challenge. The Claimant will be provided with an opportunity to Reply, if thought appropriate, after which time the file will be put before a judge or deputy judge on the papers for consideration of whether to grant permission to the Claimants to bring this claim, which will include consideration of the timeliness and forum issues.

Anonymity etc

6. The Claimants are minors, and their personal circumstances are also such that it is clearly in the interests of justice to make the anonymity orders sought in relation to each of them. Contrary to the general practice of this Court of providing the cyphers, I have kept the cyphers previously used by the parties (save that I have shortened OOA’s by one letter). The use of new cyphers for the parties at this advanced stage of the proceedings is only likely to cause confusion down the line. If the Claimants wish to be identified in these proceedings by Court generated cyphers, then a separate application can be made in this regard.

MIA’s applications

7. For the reasons identified in paragraph 5 of MIA’s application (sealed on 5 December 2024), is it clearly in the interests of justice to permit MIA to withdraw their claim. The third Defendant is neutral on the application, the second Defendant has not provided a response, and the first Defendant accepts that permission should be given for MIA to withdraw the claim, but makes submissions on the issue of costs, which I deal with below.

8. MIA seeks no order as to costs, upon withdrawal. The first Defendant contends that given that MIA was one of two claimants, the appropriate costs order should be “no order for costs for 50% for 50% of the costs incurred to date. In other words, CJW’s costs are capped at half the costs incurred to date”. In my view issues of costs are more appropriately dealt with holistically rather than piecemeal, and for this reason all issues relating to MIA’s costs are reserved.

CJW and MIA’s joint applications

9. MIA and CJW jointly sought an extension of time until 26 September 2024, to file and serve a Reply to the first Defendant’s AoS and Summary Grounds of Defence. The first Defendant has confirmed that it has no objection to the granting of this application, and I conclude it is in the interests of justice to so grant.

10. The first Defendant does not oppose the addition of the National Crime Agency and the Chief Constable of Kent Police as Defendants in these proceedings. The third Defendant expressed a neutral stance by way of an email of 11 December 2024, but indicated therein that it may take timeliness and forum issues when responding to the substance of the claim. In my conclusion, it is in the interests of justice for National Crime Agency and the Chief Constable of Kent Police to be added as Defendants to these proceedings. I observe that both parties have now, in any event, lodged Summary Grounds of Defence. The submissions therein relating to forum and timeliness are noted.

11. The first Defendant opposes the application to amend the Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds. It is said that the proposed amendments are “made years out of time”, that OOA should not be added as a party (see below), and that issues raised in this claim are being raised in other proceedings so that there is no need for these proceedings to continue against the first Defendant. The first Defendant is obviously wrong in its assertion that the claims are made ‘years out of time’. I also observe that in ‘the other proceedings’ referred to by the first Defendant settlement negotiations are being actively pursued. The proposed amendments to the Statement of Facts and Grounds in large part provide details of the claims regarding the second and third Defendants. I further observe that the Claimants were unaware of certain features of the first Defendant’s case until the Summary Grounds of Defence. This led to the sending of PAPs to the second and third Defendants, which elicited responses that, taken with the content of the first Defendant’s Summary Grounds, necessitated amendments to the judicial review claim. At the same time, there was an application to remove MIA as a Claimant and add OOA as a Claimant, which also necessitated amendments (largely, if not entirely, factual) to the Claim Form. The second and third Defendants have
responded to the Amended Claim by way of Summary Grounds of Defence, albeit in the second Defendant’s case only on the issue of timeliness. In all the circumstances, I conclude that it is in the interests of justice to permit the Claimants to amend the Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds in the terms filed with the application of 2 December 2024.

OOA’s application

12. By way of an email of 11 December 2024, the third Defendant expressed a neutral stance on OOAs application to be added as a party, but indicated therein that it may takes timeliness and forum issues when responding to the substance of the claim. It tales these issues in its Summary Grounds of Defence. These can be appropriately addressed holistically at the stage of the consideration whether to grant permission to apply for judicial review. The first Defendant opposes OOA being added as a party on the basis that OOA beings only a de minimis damages claim against it relating to the ‘temporary separation from wet clothing which was returned”. It is said that it is not proportionate to bring, or to put the first Defendant to the expense of defending, this claim (see email of 11 December). The Claimants case includes a challenge to the first Defendant’s administrative practice and policy and is not limited to a de minimis damages claim. Whilst it is correct to say that OOA’s claim adds little to the substance of the overarching claim already being pursued by CJW, it is also correct that the additional work needed to defend the individualised aspects of the claim will not be significant.

The First Defendant’s application for an extension time to file the Acknowledgement of Service

13. The claim by CJW and MIA was sealed on 23 July 2024, and the first Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds were filed on the 22 August. Although CJW and MIA make factual observations regarding the terms of the first Defendant’s application, they ultimately express no view on its merits. Although, there was a delay in filing the AoS, the delay did not cause prejudice to any other party. Having considered all the circumstances, I conclude that it is in the interests of justice to extend time for the filing of the first Defendant’s AoS and Summary Grounds until 22 August 2024.

The second and third Defendants applications for an extension of time to file an Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence

14. There are no objections to these applications, and I conclude it is in the interests of justice to grant them.