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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-002786

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

20 September 2023


Mr Justice Fordham




Secretary of State for the Home Department


UPON considering the Claimant’s application dated 20 September 2023 issued on 21 September 2023 and the accompanying documents
AND UPON the Court being satisfied that this Order is necessary in the interests of justice for the reasons given in Form N463 and in the Grounds for Judicial Review §6 (anonymity as an asylum seeker) and §§1, 66-72 (degree of urgency)

  1. Until and subject to any further Order of this Court varying or discharging this paragraph:
    (1) Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2, the identity of the Claimant shall be anonymized as “BHH” and there is to be no reporting of the Claimant’s name nor of any matter which could give rise to the Claimant being identified.
    (2) Documents filed and served after the date of this Order are to be anonymised to remove the Claimant’s name and date of birth.
    (3) Documents filed and served prior to the date of this Order are to be refiled by the Claimant’s representatives, anonymised and suitably redacted, within 7 days of this Order.
    (4) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C any non-party who applies for a copy of any document from the court records may obtain only anonymised and redacted versions of documents filed with the Court.
  2. Liberty to any person to apply on notice to the parties to vary or discharge paragraph 1 or 2 of this Order.
  3. In the event that the Defendant opposes the application for interim relief, she must file and serve a response to the Claimant’s application for interim relief by 4pm on Friday 29 September 2023.
  4. The application for interim relief is to be listed for an inter partes hearing in the week commencing Monday 9 October 2023, with a time estimate of 2 hours. The hearing may be listed before a Deputy High Court Judge.
  5. Liberty to the parties to apply in writing on notice to vary paragraphs 3 and/or 4 of this Order.
  6. Costs reserved.


I can entirely see the concerns about suitable conditions and accommodation, to protect the public and public interest, and indeed suitable for the Claimant. But release was authorised on 21.7.23, after the third independent recommendation dated 13.7.23 (with escalation and urgency), and the s.4 accommodation claim was accepted on 31.7.23, with a chaser on 8.8.23. After BID’s request (15.8.23), C’s solicitors have written two clear letters (31.8.23, 11.9.23). The Home Office letter of response (14.9.23), which recognises the departure from the 2/5 day policy, says detention is maintained “for now”. C’s solicitors evidently wanted to achieve: (a) D’s response by 25/26.9.23; (b) a hearing by 5/6.10.23; (c) release by interim relief (originally, within 7 days; now said to be ‘immediate’). I have identified the timetable which I am satisfied is justified in the interests of justice, as necessary and proportionate. The Judge may feel that interim relief is effectively the resolution of the substantive issues as to claimed unjustified policy departure and/or Hardial Singh 3 breach and/or unjustified grace period, and may simply wish in effect to resolve those issues. If things change or the issues narrow, the Court must be kept informed. Any further materials must be supplied promptly. Anonymity is provisional (with liberty to apply) and based on the position as an asylum and human rights claimant, and the Judge at the interim relief hearing will want to be satisfied that anonymity should be continued. Liberty to apply at para 5 is not an encouragement to depart from paras 3-4, but a protection in case some cogent reason exists or arises.