PBR -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-004097

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 July 2026

Before:

The Hon. Mr Justice Sheldon

Between:

The King
on the application of
PBR
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence

THE HON. Mr Justice Sheldon

  1. Anonymity

(a) 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 “PBR]”.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
(e) The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 15 July 2026 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.”
(f) The Defendant or any non-party affected by this anonymity order may on 7 days’ notice apply to set it aside or vary it.

  1. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  2. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £619.
  3. Further provision as to costs:

(a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 3 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 3 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 3 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

  • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
  • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 3 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.

(III) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

  • the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

5. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) I grant anonymity to the Claimant in these proceedings. The evidence submitted in these proceedings contains personal medical information about the Claimant and there is no particular reason why his identity should be made public.

(2) I refuse permission to apply for judicial review as the claim is not arguable.

(3) The Claimant seeks to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State dated 6 November 2025 to treat his asylum claim of 23 August 2025 as inadmissible and to certify as clearly unfounded his human rights claim. That decision was made pursuant to the UK-France Treaty. The Claimant was removed to France on 19 November 2025, following Bryan J’s refusal of his application for interim relief.

(4) The basis of the challenge is (i) The inadmissibility decision is irrational because of the Defendant’s failure to address/identify/examine indicators of modern slavery, contrary to the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance; (ii) Had the Defendant complied with that duty, the decision on inadmissibility would have taken into account the matters in the Claimant’s Witness Statement dated 18 November 2025; (iii) Consequent on this omission, the Defendant’s assertion that France is a safe place for this Claimant is flawed.

(5) The Defendant made a negative reasonable grounds decision in respect of the Claimant’s allegation that he was trafficked in both Ethiopia and France. That decision is not challenged by way of judicial review. In any event, the Claimant’s criticism of that decision was addressed comprehensively in the Acknowledgment of Service, with which I agree.

(6) Moreover, in the inadmissibility decision, the Defendant did not simply rely on the negative reasonable grounds decision and the material that was then available for consideration; the Defendant looked at additional representations that were made by the Claimant on 1 October 2025, which post-dated the negative reasonable grounds decision.

(7) In any event, the inadmissibility decision made by the Defendant went beyond reliance on the negative reasonable grounds decision. The inadmissibility decision required consideration by the Defendant as to whether (i) the Claimant had a genuine opportunity to seek asylum in France; and (ii) whether it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the Claimant to have done so. The Defendant found that both of these elements were made out.

(8) As well as finding that the Claimant’s credibility as to what he said had happened to him in France (where he claimed to have been under the control of agents and traffickers) was damaged, the Defendant also stated that “Even on your own account you were able to escape traffickers, and you have given no good reasons why it was not possible for you to escape to claim asylum in France when it was possible for you to escape to board a boat to the UK”. This was not arguably irrational.

(9) The Defendant decided that the real reason why the Claimant did not claim asylum in France was because it had always been his intention to come to the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Defendant found that the Claimant had adequate opportunity to claim asylum in France, including during the time that he was supported by the Red Cross. These findings are not arguably irrational.

(10) As for whether France is a safe country for the Claimant, the Defendant concluded that there was no evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that his Article 3 rights would be contravened in France; and that France has a functional asylum system This was not arguably irrational.

(11) As for the certification of the Claimant’s human rights claim being unfounded, there was ample basis for this decision. There was no basis for the Claimant’s contention that he would be at risk of destitution if he was returned to France, and the Defendant was (based on the evidence) satisfied that the Claimant would be able to access suitable protection in accordance with his Convention rights. The Defendant rejected the contention that he would be at potential risk of harm if he was to be returned to France. It was noted that the Claimant had not reported his alleged exploitation to the French authorities because he feared that they would not assist him. He had not provided compelling evidence that he would be unable to avail himself of the protection of the French authorities (notably the police) or that they would be unwilling to provide him with sufficient protection. There was no basis for considering that the Claimant’s Article 3 or 8 rights (medical grounds) would be contravened; there was ample medical support available in France that he could access and would address the support referred to in the Rule 35 report.

Signed: Mr Justice Sheldon
15 July 2026