Case No: SC/148/2020
In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission
15 April 2020
Secretary of State for the Home Department
ANONYMITY ORDER: P3
ON the Appellant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 and for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’)
ON the explanatory note (as defined at paragraph 28(v) of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)) having been served on 31.3.20 by email on the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note)
ON considering the documents lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Practice Note (legal submissions, the witness statement of Anita Vasisht dated 31.3.20, and the explanatory note)
AND ON the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order:
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as P3.
2. Nothing may be published which, directly, or indirectly, identifies him as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application whereupon this order will continue for the duration of the determination of that application.
1. P3 was deprived of citizenship in December 2017 on the grounds that it would be conducive to the public good because P3 was assessed “to have links with the Iranian intelligence services”. P3 has appealed against this decision from outside the United Kingdom. P3’s family, including minor children, live in the United Kingdom (‘appeal 1’).
2. P3 has made an application for entry clearance in order to re-join his family and to be present at appeal 1. That application was refused on 7 February 2020. P3 has appealed against that decision (‘appeal 2’).
3. P3’s case in support of this application is that:
a) an anonymity order has been granted in appeal 1; there is an overlap between appeals 1 and 2, and they have been linked;
b) there is a real risk of serious harm to P3 if he is identified;
c) P3 is vulnerable. He suffers from complex PTSD, and a major depressive disorder; it is currently assessed that there is a high risk that he will take his own life;
d) the welfare of P3’s family, including his minor children, would be at risk if he were identified;
e) both appeals are in their early stages and there is a prospect that further reasons to support this application will emerge;
f) there is a real risk of a significant adverse impact on the effectiveness of appeal 1 and appeal 2 if he were identified;
g) if either appeal succeeds, there is a real risk, if he is identified, that P3’s safety and integration in the United Kingdom would be adversely affected.
4. The Commission cannot decide at this stage whether P3’s case in support of this application is well-founded. It must assume that it is, or might be, in the light of the risks which he describes. Those risks justify the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this order represents, and its interference with the Article 10 rights of the media and the public.