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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-MAN-000322

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

7 August 2025

Before:

Mr CMG Ockelton,
sitting as a judge of the High Court

Between:

The King
on the application of
RDF

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for anonymity and other relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the acknowledgment of service lodged by the Defendant

ORDER BY Mr C M G Ockelton sitting as a judge of the High Court

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or 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 RDF.
    (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 a redacted copy of any statement of case 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;
    (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many 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.
    (e) This order will be reviewed (a) at the stage when a decision is made on whether permission should be granted; and (b) after final determination of the claim.
  2. Other relief: The claimant’s applications for an extension of time for service of documents supporting the claim, and for a stay, are refused.
  3. Further process: The application for permission is to be put before a single judge for determination on the papers without delay.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant claims to be a minor. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) Other relief: The claimant issued these proceedings avowedly incomplete and sought an order for a stay and an extension of time. No such orders have been made. It appears that the claimant or those acting for him have failed to provide the documents necessary to constitute this claim properly even within the most recent, re-extended timescale sought. The defendant has filed an acknowledgment of service asking that the proceedings be struck out. In the circumstances no useful purpose would be served by granting the extensions sought, because the time limits have passed. It is right that the defendant should know without further delay whether the claim is to proceed; hence paragraph 3 of the Order above.

Signed: CMG Ockelton