Rex on the application of MAN -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim no: AC-2023-LON-001756
AC-2023-LON-001760

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

27 September 2024

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

Between:

(1) MAN
(2) LAN

-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 Acknowledgements of service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

  1. The application for permission in AC-2023-LON-001756 and AC-2023-LON-001760 to apply for judicial review is granted with respect to ground 2: relying on an unpublished policy. Permission to apply for judicial review with respect to ground 1: the public order disqualification decisions for both Claimants is refused.
  2. The two claims are to be consolidated, and the substantive hearing is to be listed for one day; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction, and the parties to have liberty to apply on 48 hours’ notice to the other parties if they wish to vary or discharge the order for consolidation.
  3. The names and identities of the Claimants are to be anonymised, using the initials MAN and LAN. There shall be no reporting or publication of their names or identities or of any information leading to their identification.

Observations

  1. The two claims raise identical issues. I see no reason why they should proceed separately and order their consolidation. There is liberty to apply to vary/discharge if any of the parties object to this direction.
  2. The claims involve Claimants who are potential victims of human trafficking. For that reason, their names and identities should be anonymised. There is no public interest in knowing their names or identities.
  3. Public order disqualification decisions were taken with respect to both Claimants. These have now been withdrawn and so ground 1 – a challenge to the lawfulness of those decisions is no longer pursued.
  4. The Claimants also seek to challenge the approach that appears to have been taken by the Secretary of State to a series of cases, including their own. It is contended that the Secretary of State has relied upon an unpublished policy that public order disqualification decisions be taken based on a “moment in time” analysis (that is, would individuals be at risk of human trafficking at a particular point in time, rather than prospectively). The Secretary of State has stated that there is no such policy, but the approach to “moment in time” was reflected in training to staff which has now been withdrawn. The Secretary of State contends that this ground of challenge is academic and/or the Claimants do not have interest in pursuing it as the decisions with respect to them have been withdrawn.
  5. The Claimants also seek to challenge the approach that appears to have been taken by the Secretary of State to a series of cases, including their own. It is contended that the Secretary of State has relied upon an unpublished policy that public order disqualification decisions be taken based on a “moment in time” analysis (that is, would individuals be at risk of human trafficking at a particular point in time, rather than prospectively). The Secretary of State has stated that there is no such policy, but the approach to “moment in time” was reflected in training to staff which has now been withdrawn. The Secretary of State contends that this ground of challenge is academic and/or the Claimants do not have interest in pursuing it as the decisions with respect to them have been withdrawn.
  6. Of course, the Claimants are under an obligation to keep their challenge under review. If the Secretary of State does respond to the Part 18 request, or satisfies the Claimants in some other way that the “moment in time” approach will not be applied going forward, then they may seek to withdraw their claims in the usual way.
  7. I do not make any direction with respect to the Part 18 request. I leave it to the Secretary of State to determine whether, and if so how, to respond to the request.
  8. I also make no order with respect to the Claimants’ Reply to the Acknowledgment of Service. No order is required for it to be considered: see CPR 54.8A. It was considered by me in making this Order.

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 54.8 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 54.14.
  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 must file it with the Court not less than 4 weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
  4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  5. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  6. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.
  7. 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. However, if all parties agree and time estimates for substantive hearing allow, the reconsideration hearing may take place immediately before the substantive hearing. The Administrative Court Office must be notified within 21 days of the service and filing of Form 86B if the parties agree to this course.