Case No: CO/1989/2022
In the High Court of Justice
Queen’s Bench Division
6 June 2022
The Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
The Queen on the application of
(3) AXB (a child, by her litigation friend RXB)
(4) NXB (a child, by his litigation friend RXB)
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On the Claimant’s application for urgent consideration
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), the identity of the Claimants shall not be disclosed. The Claimants shall be referred to as RXB, TXB, AXB and NXB. The claim shall be known as “R (RXB, TXB, AXB & NXB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department”.
2. The time for the Defendant to file and serve her acknowledgment of service is abridged to 14 days.
3. Within 7 days of receipt of the Defendant’s Acknowledgment of Service or the expiry of time for filing it, whichever is the earlier, the application for permission and expedition shall be put before a Judge for consideration on the papers as soon as reasonably practicable.
4. Liberty to the Defendant to apply to vary or set aside this order on giving at least 48 hours’ written notice to the Claimant.
1. The first Claimant and her children the second and third Claimants are asylum-seekers who are accommodated by the Defendant pursuant to s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1995, together with two other children of the first Claimant and siblings of the second and third Claimants. The third Claimant is a disabled child. The Claimants allege the conditions in the hotel accommodation where they have been accommodated since 12 August 2021 are grossly inadequate for the family and particularly for the third Claimant’s needs.
2. I accept their application for an anonymity order, having regard to the status of the first three Claimants as asylum seekers, and the fact that that husband of the first Claimant, from whom she is separated, who is the father of the second, third and fourth Claimants, is also an asylum seeker and his whereabouts are not known In this case, the open justice principle is outweighed by the risks that identifying them may create for the Claimants and the first Claimant’s husband.
3. In the circumstances, I accept that a degree of expedition is appropriate and so I have abridged time and made an order for the permission application to be put before a judge expeditiously. I have not made the order sought providing for the Claimants to file a reply. It is not an ordinary part of the procedure and no explanation has been given as to why a reply is needed in this case.