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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtLady Chief JusticeAnonymity Order

Claim no. AC-2024-LON-002676

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

8 August 2024

Before:

The Hon Mrs Justice Foster DBE

Between:

R (on the application of AXY)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

ANONYMITY ORDER

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

UPON consideration of the Claim Form and Applications for urgent interim relief and anonymity.
and

UPON it appearing that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests 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

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Anonymity

  1. The Claimant shall hereinafter be referred to in these proceedings as AXY2.
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2(4) there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the name or address of the Claimant or any details leading to the identification of the Claimant and the Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as AXY.
  3. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as AXY; and (b) that any reference to the names of the Claimant be deleted from those documents.
  4. Any person affected by paragraphs 1 – 3 of this Order may apply on notice
    to all parties to have this Order set aside or varied.

    Interim Relief
  5. The Defendant shall relocate the Claimant and until further Order of this
    Court accommodate him in single occupancy accommodation pursuant to s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by 10 am Monday 12 August 2024.
  6. The requirement for an Acknowledgement of Service shall be dispensed with.
  7. The Defendant is to file such Statement of Grounds of Defence as it is advised to rely upon by 4 pm Friday 30 August 2024. The Defendant may by the same time (but is not required to do so) file evidence relied on in response to the Claim.
  8. The papers are to be put before a Judge of the High Court by 2pm Monday 2 September 2024 for urgent consideration of the question of Permission and further Directions.
  9. Liberty on 48 hours’ notice in writing by email to the parties and to the Court to seek to vary this Order.
  10. Costs reserved.

Amended pursuant to the slip rule CPR 40.12 this 9th day of August 2024

OBSERVATIONS

  1. The Claimant is stated to be a vulnerable individual, having just turned 18 years old ( disputed by the Defendant). He is described as a destitute asylum seeker whom the Defendant has decided is entitled to support under section 95 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (“IAA 1999”) and a potential victim of modern slavery being the recipient of a positive reasonable grounds decision.
  2. He is argued as such to be unsuitable for room sharing under the Defendant’s own policy, requiring a single occupancy room. The policy version 12 states … “ where an individual has been referred into the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) as a potential victim of modern slavery, and has received a positive reasonable grounds decision – if an individual subsequently receives a negative conclusive grounds decision or public order disqualification, they are suitable for Napier, ex-MoD sites, vessels, and/or room sharing”.
  3. He states he has been required to share a room with unknown older men since he arrived in his current hotel accommodation in November 2023. This reminds him of past mistreatment.
  4. A very short timetable was set for the Defendant by the Claimant, The Defendant must be given an opportunity to respond and the arguability of the issue then tested. The balance of convenience given the Claimant’s asserted case, requires that an Order be made but expedition also to be ordered in order to decide the issues promptly.