S3 -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Anonymity Order

Case No: SC/151/2018


17 January 2020



The Commission




The Secretary of State for the Home Department



On the Appellant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 and for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’)

On the Respondent having been notified of the application on 21 August 2019 by email

On the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures dated 29 November 2018 – ‘the Practice Note’) having been served with the explanatory note on 4 October 2019

On considering the documents lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Practice Note: (1) the application notice; (2) the Appellant’s witness statement; (3) legal submissions on behalf of the Appellant; (4) a draft order; and (5) an explanatory note

And on the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order


  1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and will continue to be known in these proceedings as S3.
  2. Nothing may be published which directly or indirectly identifies him as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
  3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
  4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application.


  1. The CPR do not apply to proceedings in the Commission. The Commission has therefore deleted paragraph 2 from the draft order.
  2. The Appellant was a dual British/Sudanese national before the decision which is the subject of these proceedings. His case is that he was tortured in Sudan before coming to the United Kingdom in the early 2000s. He was recognised as a refugee in 2007. His partner has indefinite leave to remain and their two children are British citizens. His children have the same surname as he does. He has kept the proceedings secret from his children and friends.
  3. The Appellant was deprived of his nationality when he was visiting Sudan. The OPEN allegation against him is that the Secretary of State assesses that he is a supporter of ISIL and has encouraged others to support ISIL. He denies that allegation.
  4. The case against the Appellant appears to him to be being made in CLOSED. The OPEN allegations against him are serious. If reported they could damage his reputation, he argues irreparably, and put him and his family at risk here and in Sudan, if they were to return there. He fears that if the allegations were made public, he and his family would be ostracised. There is a risk of reprisals.
  5. The Commission cannot make findings of fact at this stage. Its approach is that the Appellant’s case is, or might be, well-founded. On that basis, the risks he describes justify the encroachment into the principle of open justice made by this order, and its interference with the article 10 rights of the press and of the public.