Case No: CO/3280/2022
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
20 September 2022
The Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE
The King on the application of
(3) DYB (by her Litigation Friend, SAM)
(4) DIB (by her Litigation Friend, SAM)
(5) DAB BESARAN (by her Litigation Friend, SAM)
(6) SB BESARAN (by her Litigation Friend, SAM
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On the Claimants’ application for anonymity, interim relief and directions dated 8 September 2022
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant’s response to the application set out in email dated 15 September 2022
ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice Hill DBE
1. The Claimants are granted anonymity. Pursuant to the Contempt of Court Act 1981, section 11 and CPR Rule 39.2(4) the Claimants’ identities are to be anonymised, prohibiting publication of any details which might lead to their identification. The Claimants should hereafter in these proceedings be referred to as “SAM”, “BS”, DYB”, “DIB”, “DAB” and “SB”. This claim shall be known and listed only as SAM and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
2. Pursuant to CPR Rules 5.4C and 5.4D a person who is not a party to the proceedings may not obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the Court records unless the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised in accordance with the direction above.
3. The Court file shall be clearly noted with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 20 September 2022 and any application by a non-party to inspect or obtain a copy document from this file must be dealt with in accordance with the terms of that Order.”
4. The First Claimant, SAM, is appointed as Litigation Friend for Claimants 3, 4, 5 and 6 pursuant to CPR 2.1.
5. The Defendant shall file and serve any written response to the Claimants’ application for interim relief supported by evidence if appropriate when filing her Acknowledgment of Service.
6. The Claimants shall file and serve any Reply within 4 working days of the Defendant’s response.
7. The Claimants’ application for interim relief and permission shall be considered on the papers within 14 days or as soon as possible thereafter.
8. The parties have liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order upon providing 2 working days’ written notice to the other party. Any other person has liberty on 3 days’ written notice to the parties to apply to vary or discharge the anonymity order set out above.
9. Costs in the case.
1. The Claimants are a family of Iraqi Kurdish asylum seekers. They arrived in the UK in August 2021 (save for the Sixth Claimant who was born in the UK). The Fourth Claimant is severely disabled. The Claimants have been granted support and accommodation pursuant to s.95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In September 2021 they were accommodated in two separate hotel rooms at different ends of a long corridor on the third floor.
2. It is argued that the accommodation is inadequate because (i) there is no self-contained kitchen available and the hotel food is not suitable for the children; (ii) the rooms are small and not properly ventilated; and (iii) the rooms have small ensuite bathrooms with shower cubicles, which do not allow the Fourth Claimant to be washed safely.
3. On 5 May 2022 the Defendant agreed to move the family to adequate housing by 13 May 2022 but this did not occur. A subsequent letter dated 16 August 2022 indicated that the Defendant would aim to disperse the family by 25 August 2022. To date this has not occurred.
4. The Claimants argue that the Defendant’s provision of this accommodation is unlawful because (i) it is not adequate for the purposes of the 1999 Act; (ii) the Defendant has departed from published policy/guidance without good reason and has otherwise failed to have regard to relevant considerations; (iii) the Fourth Claimant is being discriminated against contrary to the Equality Act 2010; and (iv) their rights under Article 8 ECHR are being breached.
5. The case will involve detailed consideration of the Claimants’ private life and their health issues, especially those of the Fourth Claimant. Four of the Claimants are very young children. This personal information engages the Claimants’ Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life. Having considered these Article 8 rights, and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression, I am satisfied that (i) non-disclosure of the identities of the Claimants is strictly necessary in order to protect their his interests; and (ii) there is insufficient countervailing public interest in disclosure of their identities to justify interfering with his Article 8 rights.
6. The evidence suggests that the conditions of the Claimants’ accommodation are having a series of damaging effects on their health and wellbeing. It is considered that some expedition of the claim is appropriate, but not to quite the same degree as proposed by the Claimants in their application (to which the Defendant objected). It is noted that the Acknowledgment of Service is due shortly in any event. The timetable above affords the Defendant a proportionate period of time to respond to the application for interim relief and permission, and for the case to be placed before a judge for prompt determination thereafter.