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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2026-LON-001665

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

16 April 2026

In the matter of an application for judicial review

Before:

Mrs Justice Farbey

Between:

The King on the application of

PQR

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Anonymity Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Farbey on 10 April 2026

  1. The application for interim relief is refused.
  2. UPON it appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to protect the right to respect for private life of the Claimant, pursuant to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C of the Civil Procedure Rules
  3. The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as PQR (“the cipher”). There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the Claimant by name, and
    whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher.
  4. Pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  5. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each party.

    Reasons

    1. The Claimant seeks to be released on the basis that the Secretary of State has recognised her as a victim of trafficking but has failed to produce any evidence that she has received a positive conclusive grounds decision.
    In the absence of a conclusive grounds letter, the court takes a sceptical view as to the credibility of the Claimant’s assertion.

    2. The Claimant relies on a rule 35 report which concludes that ongoing detention is unlikely to be “contributing negatively at present.” This weighs against her release as there is no reason to suppose that continuing detention has harmed her physical or psychological health.

    3. The Claimant has been detained pending her removal from the UK and has produced no proper evidence that she has any form of right to remain. It is plainly in the interests of effective immigration control that she remain
    in detention pending removal.