R on the application of AZP -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim no: AC-2024-LON-000826

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

8 October 2024

Before:

Mr Justice Dexter Dias

Between:

The King
on the application of
AZP

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

ANONYMITY ORDER

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement(s) of Service (AoS) and Summary Grounds of Defence (SGD) filed by the Defendant

ORDER by
Mr Justice Dexter Dias

Anonymity

  1. Anonymity order granted.
  2. The identity of the Claimant as a party to these proceedings is confidential and shall not be published.
  3. Pursuant to CPR Rule 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of these proceedings or other publication the name or address of the Claimant, or any details (including other names, addresses, or a specific combination of facts) that could lead to the identification of AZP as the Claimant in these proceedings. The Claimant shall be referred to as set out at paragraph 3 of this Order.
  4. In any judgment or report of these proceedings, or other publication (by whatever medium) in relation thereto:
    a. The Claimant shall be referred to as “AZP”.
    b. Any other details which, on their own or together with other information publicly available, may lead to the identification of the Claimant (including any names of other immediate family members or their addresses) shall be redacted before publication.
  5. Pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4C and 5.4D:
    a. A person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with subparagraphs 3(i) to (iii) above.
    b. If a person who is not a party to the proceedings applies (pursuant to CPR r.5.4C(1B) or (2)) for permission to inspect or obtain a copy of any other document or communication, such application shall be on at least 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitor.
  6. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 7 October 2024 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.”
  7. Any interested party, whether or not a party to the proceedings, may apply to the Court to vary or discharge this Order, provided that any such application is made on 7 days’ notice to the Claimant’s solicitor.
  8. Pursuant to the ‘Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders’ issued by the Master of the Rolls dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this Order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk.

    Extension of time
  9. Extension of time for the claimant to reply to the defendant’s AoS and SGD granted.

    Permission
  10. The application for permission to apply for judicial review granted on both grounds.

Case Management Directions

1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within [35] days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR PD 8C 5.5 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR PD 8C 12.1.

2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within [21] days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.

3. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and the Claimant must file it with the Court not less than [21] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant shall, if requested by the Court lodge hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

  1. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than [14] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  2. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than [7] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  3. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle of authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic and hard copy versions of the bundle must be lodged by the Claimant with the Court not less than [5] days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  4. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course.

Reasons

  1. The arguability test is met.
  2. I find that on both grounds the claimant has arguable grounds with a realistic
    prospect of success (Sharma v Brown-Antoine [2007] 1 WLR 780 at para 14(4); CPR 54.4.2 and Judicial Review Guide 2023 at §9.1.3). As explained in Maharaj v Petroleum Company of Trinidad and Tobago [2019] UKPC 21, the threshold for the grant of leave to apply for judicial review is “low” (at para 3, per Lord Sales).
  3. At the heart of the dispute between the parties lies the proper and principled interpretation of the term “exploitation”. This is a matter of significant importance. Since I have concluded that the claimant’s case meets the arguability test, it is inappropriate to say more about my reading of the term at this point. However, the question of whether the buying and selling of human bodies, and not just the organs in them, is a form of chattel slavery properly meeting the definition of exploitation is a matter, it seems to me, of value for the court to clarify, particularly in the specific circumstances of this case. The claimant has reached the arguability threshold in respect of this issue.
  4. The several arguments advanced by the defendant in his AoS/SGD can be advanced at the substantive hearing. Taken together with the careful submissions of the claimant, they unmistakably reinforce the point that there are questions of substance that merit being tried which are plainly arguable.