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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-001461

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

18 July 2025

Before:

Aidan Eardley KC

Between:

The King on the application of
SEN

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY AIDAN EARDLEY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  1. Anonymity:
    (a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
    (i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
    (ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as SEN.
    (b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
    (c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
    (i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
    (ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;
    (iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
    (d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1,220.
  4. Further provision as to costs:
    (a) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):
    (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 3 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 3 is a final order and the Claimant must pay the sum specified within 14 days of the date of this Order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)).
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:
    – the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
    b) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):
    i) Paragraph 3 does not become final as respects the costs payable to any party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:
    – the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
    – permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.
    ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 3 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve (together with the request for reconsideration) a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount assessed.
    iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:
    – the other party may, within 7 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
    – if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
    – the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing;
    – any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.
  5. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:
    (a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.
    (b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:
    (i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;
    (ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party;
    (iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;
    (iv) this Order;
    (v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);
    (vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.
    (c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.
    (d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:
    (i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;
    (ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and
    (iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.
    (e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.
    (f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

Reasons

(1) As to anonymity, the claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.
(2) The Claimant challenges the Defendant’s refusal of the Claimant’s application for naturalisation as a British Citizen. The initial decision was made on 2 December 2024 and then upheld following a review on 11 April 2025. It may be that the real target of the claim is the December 2024 decision, not the refusal to review it in April 2025, such that an extension of time might be needed (but readily granted) if the claim were to proceed. Since, either way, the merits are not sufficiently strong to allow the claim to proceed, I do not need to address that point further.
(3) The Claimant’s application for naturalisation was refused only because she had not satisfied the “Knowledge of Language and Life” (‘KoLL’) requirement and because, in the Defendant’s view, she did not qualify for a waiver exempting her from that requirement.
(4) Ground 1 alleges that the Defendant acted in a way that was procedurally unfair or unlawful because in breach of her own guidance by refusing the Claimant’s KoLL waiver request. This is not properly arguable. As to procedural fairness, the Defendant’s chronology in her Summary Grounds of Defence shows that she notified the Claimant on 29 October 2024 that her KoLL waiver request had been refused and gave her an opportunity to supply further medical evidence to support that request. On 14 November 2024 the Claimant was informed that her naturalisation application would be refused unless the necessary evidence was provided by 26 November 2024. That was a conspicuously fair process. As to the alleged failure to follow the Defendant’s own guidance, the guidance requires proof of a relevant physical or mental condition. The KoLL waiver form completed by Dr Sarah Smith fell short of this (Defendant’s bundle pps 22-24). It records symptoms experienced by the Claimant but does not confirm any diagnosis.
(5) Ground 2 refers to the Claimant’s medical history more generally. This concerns evidence that was not put before the Defendant in advance of the initial decision on 2 December 2024. The Claimant has not articulated a case that the Defendant was required, when conducting her review in April 2025, to look at evidence that was not before the original decision maker and the Defendant denies that this was the case. In any event, it is open to the Claimant to make a fresh application relying on this new evidence.
(6) Ground 3 asserts that the Claimant is the beneficiary of a “conclusive grounds” decision that she is the victim of human trafficking. This is not disputed. She says that this imposes various duties on the state towards her including duties to ensure that she is not re-traumatised or subjected to unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. I do not need to express a view on the extent of the duties owed to victims of human trafficking because, on any view, requiring her to go through the normal KoLL procedures or obtaining a KoLL waiver could not sensibly be described as retraumatising or unnecessarily bureaucratic.
(7) Ground 4 alleges that the refusal of naturalisation amounts to a breach of ECHR Art 8 on the basis that it prevents the Claimant from being reunited with her elderly and unwell mother (presumably resident in Uganda). The Claimant’s case here is hopelessly unclear. If she is saying that she cannot travel to see her mother abroad, that would appear to be contradicted by the Defendant’s Summary Grounds, which state, in the chronology section, that she was issued with a travel document on 30 November 2021 valid until November 2031. If she is saying that her mother cannot travel to the UK to see her until she is naturalised as a British Citizen, then that really collapses into the same challenge brought under Grounds 1 and 2. As the Defendant points out, the Claimant has the option of making a new application based on up to date information not considered in December 2024 and/or April 2025. I regard that as highly significant: the Defendant is accepting that the Claimant can apply again for naturalisation, with such application to be considered on its merits at the time it is made;
(8) Ground 5: “structural injustice and equality”: The Claimant is here trying to invoke the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010. I do not understand the Claimant’s case as to how the Defendant’s decision might be said to engage and breach its PSED duties. It therefore fails the permission test.
(9) Ground 6 alleges that the Defendant failed to exercise its discretion under BNA 1981, s 6(1) “reasonably or compassionately”. I do not consider this to be arguable: the Claimant had ample opportunity to explain her personal situation to the decision maker and she did so. For reasons that are beyond public law challenge, the decision maker rejected the Claimant’s reasons for her failure to undergo the Koll Test.
(10) Ground 7 is a complaint of delay in administrative decision making. The Claimant contends that this has resulted in her ability to pursue her academic studies and has impacted her mental health. The chronology of how the case has developed is set out in the Summary Grounds of Resistance. The evidence about the timeframe in this case does not come close to suggesting that the Defendant has engaged in delay to the extent that it would give rise to an arguable public law challenge.
(11) The Defendant’s costs are reasonable and proportionate

Requests to reconsider permission at a hearing pursuant to CPR 54.12

Where the Claimant wishes to request reconsideration of the refusal of permission at a hearing:
(a) The request must be made by completing and filing Form 86B within 7 days after the date of service of this Order.
(b) A fee is payable on filing Form 86B. Details of the current fees are at https://www.gov.uk/court-fees-what-they-are. The form to make an application for remission of a court fee can be obtained at https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees.
(c) If the Claimant does not pay the fee or submit a certified application for fee remission, paragraph 1 of this Order is final.