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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim No: AC-2024–LON-0001275

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

15 April 2024


Mr Justice Freedman


R (on the application of J)


Secretary of State for the Home Department


BEFORE Mr Justice Freedman sitting in the High Court of Justice on 15 April 2024

UPON considering the Claimant’s application for anonymity

AND UPON considering the documents lodged by the Claimant

Warning: If you do not obey this order, you may be held in contempt of court and you may be imprisoned, fined or your assets may be seized.

1. The publication of any information in relation to these proceedings likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant is prohibited from the date of this order. For the avoidance of doubt, this order shall apply to any publication from the date of the hearing and applies to all information in the proceedings including documents and information in relation to these proceedings whether before or after the hearing itself.

2. This case shall be known as “R (on the application of J)”. The Claimant shall be referred to as “J”.

3. Pursuant to CPR Rules r.5.4C and r.5.4D, unless the Court grants permission no non-party may obtain a copy of any statement of case, order or judgment, or any other document unless it has been redacted. If an application is made by any person pursuant to CPR r.5.4C(2) or (6), the Court shall give notice to the Claimant of the application.

4. The Court file shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 15 April 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.”

5. 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 2 days’ notice to both the Claimant and the Defendant’s representatives. If such an application is sought to be made by a non-party, the Court shall give notice to the Claimant of the application.

6. A copy of this order shall be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales pursuant to CPR r.39.2(5). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk


The Court has had regard to the allegations of mistreatment and sexual assaults and that J has mental health problems and is said to be a “highly vulnerable asylum seeker”. In these circumstances, anonymity in accordance with CPR39.2(4) is necessary and appropriate.


On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Freedman

1. The Defendant shall not remove the Claimant from his current accommodation at Airlink Hotel, 18-22 Pump Lane, Hayes, Greater London UB3 3NB (“the Premises”) until after a further determination in this matter until a further determination either orally or on the papers. This matter shall be determined further by not later than the end of Friday 19 April 2024, or such later time as may be agreed between the parties or ordered by further order of the Court.

2. The Defendant has liberty to apply to vary or discharge the order in paragraph 1 above on 24 hours’ written notice to the Claimant.

3. Any application made under paragraph 2 above is to be referred to a High Court Judge/judge or deputy judge for consideration immediately after issue.

4. Costs reserved.

This is an order for an injunction. Breach of paragraph 1 of this order may give rise to contempt proceedings. Even if an application has been made under paragraph 2 to vary or discharge, the order at paragraph 1 must be complied with unless or until such an order is made.


1. A separate order for anonymity has been made.

2. The relevant background is set out at paragraphs 6 -12 of the Statements of Facts and Grounds for Judicial Review (“SFG”).

3. The Defendant is intending to remove J from the premises on 16 April 2024 and to place him in shared accommodation in Surrey.

4. J has raised a case sufficient for an injunction that the proposed accommodation is not adequate to meet the needs of J due to his mental health condition, summarised at para. 26 of the SFG. Further, the proposal is that he would be moved to a shared flat which would negatively impact his mental health according to the facts set out in para. 27 of the SFG and a care plan review letter of Dr Gupta of 10 February 2024.

5. The Claimant has raised a case sufficient for an injunction that the Defendant has failed to have any or any adequate regard to the significance of the health care needs policy has set out as summarised at para 28 of the SFG. There is also a serious concern about the effect of a move to Surrey from the area where he has been receiving mental health treatment and has an existing support network throughout a period of over a year.

6. The Court is satisfied that the balance of convenience is in favour of making an order in that the harm caused to the Claimant, if an order is not made, appears to outweigh the harm to the Defendant of postponing the order for the short time that this order will have effect.

7. The Court has also considered medical evidence albeit not up to date about his history and mental health problems.

8. In the circumstances, a short order is appropriate to prevent his removal from the Premises and so that the intended removal to Surrey or elsewhere does not take place without the matter being further considered by the Court or agreement between the parties. Consideration was given to the possibility of having an exception from the order to enable the Defendant to remove the Claimant to a single accommodation unit within the same area as where he is receiving treatment. In view of:
(a) The limited duration of the order;
(b) The ability to discharge or vary the order
(c) The need to contain controversy between the parties in the short term of the order;
The Court has decided not to include that exception within the order. For the avoidance of doubt, that does not preclude the parties from agreeing such a variation or from the Defendant seeking that variation from the Court.

9. The Court has made an order without notice because of the urgency claimed by the Claimant and the submission about absence of delay in the part of the legal advisors. The Court is nonetheless concerned about the time which may have elapsed between the time when the Claimant knew of the intended move and the time of the making of this application. Such matters can be addressed at a later stage if appropriate. At this stage, on the information before the Court, it is appropriate to grant the injunction.