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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/2917/2022

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

7 March 2023


Mrs Justice Lang


The King on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department


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 Acknowledgment of service filed by the Defendant;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, the Claimant’s wife, or their child, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In the proceedings, they shall be anonymised and referred to as follows: the Claimant – “RF”; the Claimant’s wife – “HM”; and their child – “R”.
  2. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, his wife and child, in accordance with paragraph 1 above.
  3. The Claimant is granted permission to rely upon his Reply.
  4. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  5. The Claimant do pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgment of Service (summarily assessed in the sum of £867), subject to the costs protection afforded under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount of costs that the Claimant shall pay shall be determined on an application by the Defendant under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Claimant to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.


I have granted an anonymity order. The Claimant and his family are asylum seekers who claim to be at risk. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice is justified.

In my view, the Claimant’s grounds are unarguable and have no realistic prospect of success. The contention that the Defendant has failed to identify and take account of the child’s best interests and needs, when deciding how to discharge the duty to provide accommodation and support, is not supported by the evidence, which demonstrates that the Defendant has taken into account R’s needs (as identified by his parents), made adjustments, and satisfied herself that his needs are being met. For example, the benefit of the additional room provided to the family, the availability of suitable children’s meals, space to play indoors and a park nearby, bedroom windows that open (albeit restricted for safety reasons). There is no evidence that the asthma attack suffered by R was caused by the hotel accommodation.

The family has been in initial hotel accommodation for nearly a year now, and in accordance with the Defendant’s policies, ought to be dispersed to more suitable accommodation. However, there is a queue and other families who have been waiting longer are yet to be dispersed. The judgment not to prioritise the Claimant and his family does not disclose any arguable public law error.