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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-BHM -000195

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

6 February 2025

Before:

His Honour Judge Rawlings

Between:

The King on the application of
SG

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

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

Following consideration of the documents filed by the Claimant, the Defendants Acknowledgment of Service Summary Grounds of Defence and Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY HIS HONOUR JUDGE RAWLINGS

1. Permission to apply for judicial review:

    Permission is granted on all grounds.

    2. 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 SG.

      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.

        3. Case Management Directions:
        a) The Defendant must, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (i) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds and (ii) any written evidence to be relied on.
        b) The Defendant may comply with sub-paragraph (a)(i) above by filing and serving a document which states that its Summary Grounds are to stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.
        c) Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply must be filed and served, together with a copy of that evidence, within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to (a) above.
        d) The parties must agree the contents of the hearing bundle, aAn electronic version of the bundle must be prepared and lodged, in accordance with the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide Chapter 21 and Guidance on the Administrative Court website not less than 28 days before the date of the substantive hearing. The parties must, if requested by the Court, lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.
        e) The parties must agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle must be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties must, if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, must be lodged with the Court not less than 7 days before the date of the substantive hearing.
        f) The time estimate for the substantive hearing is 1 day If either party considers that this time estimate should be varied, they must inform the court as soon as possible.

        OBSERVATIONS AND REASONS

        1. Granting Permission: Grounds 1 and 2 are both arguable.
        2. Anonymity: The Claimant is an asylum seeker. There is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family will increase the risk they would face if returned to their country of origin. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.