R on the application of WUL -v- Single Competent Authority and another (anonymity order)
Claim no: AC-2024-LON-003309
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
8 October 2024
Before:
Hon. Mr Justice Dexter Dias
Between:
The King on the application of WUL (anonymity order granted)
-v-
Single Competent Authority
and
Secretary of State for the Home Department
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
ANONYMITY ORDER
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief and directions
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
ORDER by the Hon. Mr Justice Dexter Dias:
- Anonymity
(a) Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “WUL”.
(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the 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.
(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
(i) the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant,
a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;
(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
- Interim relief: The application for the interim relief is dismissed.
REASONS
Anonymity: Since the claimant claims, albeit on a slender basis, that he is at risk of violence, the court exercises
its discretion through an abundance of caution to make an anonymity order in his favour.
Interim relief
Procedural background
- The application was placed before the immediates judge at 10.29 am on 8 October 2024. There was no acknowledgement of service before the court from either defendant. In light of the claimant’s application, the court granted the defendants until 3 pm to respond to the application, emphasising that in the absence of response it would make a decision on the papers before it in any event. The claimant is marked down for deportation to Tirana on 9 October 2024.
- The decision to maintain the deportation and the certification of the claim were made on 2 September 2024. The immigration factual summary was served on 5 September 2024. The removal letter was served on 25 September 2024. The claimant’s “Statement of Case and Grounds” is dated 3 October 2024. The judicial review claim was lodged on 4 October 2024. The claim was incorrectly lodged, not being by email. It is not a reasonable explanation that delay was incurred by the claimant’s solicitor moving firms. It is known to all practitioners that these claims are highly time-sensitive. The claim was only properly submitted at 11.46 am on 7 October 2024. The bundle was not compliant. A compliant bundle was only received at 4.07 pm on 7 October 2024. This is very, and unreasonably, late.
- Given the notice that the claimant was given of the removal window, the court is not satisfied that steps to challenge the removal were taken “as early as possible”, nor that the application was made “with as much notice to the Secretary of State as is practicably feasible” (Judicial Review Guide 2024, para 16.8.6).
Assessment of pleaded grounds
Ground 1 - The defendants’ concerns about the claimant’s accounts are not about trivial factual inconsistencies, but go to the heart of whether the claimant is credible. It is difficult to conceive how it can be plausibly maintained that he entered the country in June 2022 (see B3, Chronology), when he had been sentenced at Guildford Crown Court on 22 April 2022 to 7 months imprisonment (30 weeks and 10 weeks concurrent) for being concerned in cannabis production.
- The failure to self-identify as a victim of trafficking earlier must be seen in light of such important credibility concerns and not in isolation (for example in the RG1 decision). The court must assess the holistic evidential picture. On 12 April 2023, he failed to attend his asylum interview and his claim was deemed withdrawn. On 15 January 2024, he was again convicted of being concerned in cannabis production. He was sentenced at Lewes Crown Court to 14 months imprisonment. On 5 July 2024 a negative Reasonable Grounds decision was made. Following a request for reconsideration, a second negative Reasonable Grounds decision was made on 19 July 2024. Looking at the evidence as a whole, these were reasonable decisions and plainly open to the defendant to make. It is not arguable that there remains a “credible suspicion” that the claimant is a victim of trafficking or remains at risk of exploitation.
Ground 2 - It is unarguable that, as claimed in Ground 2, an “impermissibly high standard of proof/corroboration” was applied. The defendant was entitled to examine the evidence as a whole, including assessing whether there was an independent confirmation or corroboration of the claims made the individual. The defendant did not impose an artificially high or unattainable standard of proof. This was a permissible exercise is global analysis looking at the evidence in the round.
Ground 3
- The RG2 decision plainly builds upon and is taken in the context of the RG1 decision. Citing previous decisions is not the same as adopting a cursory and improperly superficial approach and capriciously dismissing submissions on reapplication.
Ground 4 - It is not arguable that the claim is unlawfully certified for the purposes of section 94. This was plainly a decision, given the lawful RG1 and RG2 decisions, open to the defendant and reasonable to make. There are strong reasons to conclude that the claim is clearly unfounded in statutory terms for the careful reasons set out in detail by the defendant in the Notice of Decision dated 2 September 2024 that runs to 76 paragraphs.
Ground 5 - The basis of the claimant’s claim that “he would be killed” on return to Albania is entirely self-reported. There is no supporting evidence whatsoever to strengthen or meaningfully contextualise its credibility, a significant feature in light of the serious credibility issues impairing his previous inconsistent accounts.
- Further, it is overstating the position to submit that “the effect of D2’s decision is that in principle, a person with a legitimate claim to asylum may never have it considered if they fail to attend an interview and provide a reason in the time frame, even if that reason is later provided. This carries a self-evident risk of refoulement and breach of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.” What the defendant did, and was entitled to do, was consider the nature of the application presented and assess its cogency and make a rational judgement that it added nothing new of substance.
Interim relief - The claimant seeks interim relief based on the pleaded grounds. The court must consider whether the test for interim relief as adapted for public law purposes applies (Judicial Review Guide 2024, para 16.6.1; see footnote 341 and the citation of R (Medical Justice) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 1425 (Admin), paras 6-13).
- The court has carefully considered the grounds pleaded. Despite the absence of acknowledgement of service, there is a wealth and sufficiency of material before the court to make a decision on arguability. None of the five grounds advanced are arguable. There is thus no real issue to be tried for Medical Justice Limb 1 purposes. The claimant fails on the first limb of the interim relief test.
- In any event, on the Limb 2 balance of convenience test, there is no arguable Article 8 claim, with the claimant having no family members in the United Kingdom and not having discernibly integrated in this country. Instead, he has been sentenced to two terms of immediate imprisonment for 7 months and 14 months for being involved in cannabis production. There is a strong public interest in the Secretary of State, having determined that the presence of an individual is inconsistent with the health and morals of the nation, to maintain the decision to deport in the absence of any remaining properly founded human rights claim. It is not plausible that there is no risk of reoffending by the claimant. Further, the medical complaints relied upon, must be seen in the context of his being predominantly in good health. He stated on induction to HMP Wandsworth that he is in good health, and was offered a doctor to see but stated he did not need one. There is no or no credible or arguable reason why he could not reintegrate into society in Albania safely and effectively. He lived in Albania until unlawfully coming to the United Kingdom at the age of 24. His family remains principally in Albania, including his parents and brother and sister. There is no evidence that he has sought to legalise his stay in the United Kingdom. It is not arguable that his deportation is not conducive to the public good, as determined by the Secretary of State, and no substance in any Article 8 claim to outweigh that strong public interest.
- The balance of convenience argument fails.
- Interim relief must be rejected on both limbs of Medical Justice.