May 19, 2025

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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000113

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

19 May 2025

Before:

David Pittaway KC
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
SHT

-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 DAVID PITTAWAY 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 SHT.

(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’ costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1156.

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 2 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 2 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) 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 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(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.

(d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a 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 2 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 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 specified.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) 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 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.

4. 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) The Claimant purports to challenges the statement in the Defendant’s letter of 25 September 2024 to maintain its refusal to reconsider the Claimant’s negative Conclusive Grounds decision.

(2) The Claimant is a Vietnamese national who came to the UK illegally in 2019. He was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the production of cannabis. On 13 July 2023, the Defendant issued a notice that she was considering applying a Public Order Disqualification pursuant to section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, to the Claimant’s trafficking claim because of his conviction. On 16 October 2023, the Defendant made a Negative Conclusive Grounds decision. The Defendant rejected the Claimant’s account that he had been trafficked for the purpose of criminal exploitation on credibility grounds.

(3) On 19 October 2023, the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant and informed them that the Claimant intended to seek a reconsideration of the negative
Conclusive Grounds decision. They requested an extension of time until 30
November 2023 in order to provide full written representations and evidence in support of the Claimant’s account. On 3 May 2024, the Claimant sent the Defendant
a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) and reconsideration request letter challenging the Negative CG decision dated 16 October 2023.

(4) On 9 May 2024, the Defendant responded and maintained their decision. On 20
June 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors sent another pre-action protocol letter. The Defendant responded on the 2 July 2024 and maintained that the Modern Slavery Statutory Guidance had been updated on 12 February 2024 and that the Claimant
did not make the application before the expiry of the one-month deadline. On 25 September 2024 after further correspondence the Defendant responded and maintained their decision to refuse to reconsider the Negative CG decision.

(5) In my view, the claim is clearly out of time, reconsideration was sought on 3 May 2024 and refused by the Defendant on 9 May 2024. He then sought reconsideration on 20 June 2024, 3 July 2024 and 17 July 2024. I agree that the letter on 25 September 2024 is a response to PAP letter of 11 September 2024, which was not a request for reconsideration but was a pre-action protocol letter relating to the Defendant’s failure to give reasons in refusal to reconsider the Negative CG trafficking decision. Even if the letter of 25 September 2024 was a decision capable of challenge, this claim was not brought promptly or within three months, being filed on 20 January 2025. The Claimant was legally represented by experienced solicitors throughout, and as such would have been aware of the relevant time limits.

(6) If I am wrong on that issue, then I consider that the claim is not reasonably arguable.
(a) I agree with the Defendant’s submissions at paras 13 and 14 of the SGD that it
was not until the fourth request on 17 July 2024 that an explanation was put forward that the Claimant believed exceptional circumstances should be found to apply so that an extension to the 1-month timeframe introduced by version 3.7 of the guidance should be granted. Notwithstanding that the Claimant had been made aware of the updated guidance in the letters from the Defendant of 9 May 2024 and 2 July 2024.
(b) Further I do not consider that there is any merit in the submission that there has been a breach of Article 4 ECHR. As para 19 of the SGD points out, the one-month limit can be extended if an individual can provide evidence of exceptional circumstances that warrant an extension. No request was made until the fourth request for a reconsideration.
(c) There is also no merit in the third ground that inadequate reasons for refusing to reconsider the Negative CG decision. As I have already said, the letter of 25 September 2025 was a response to the PAP letter of 11 September 2025 and no further reasons were required.

(7) In my view permission should be refused for the reasons set out above.

Signed: David Pittaway

Date: 19/05/2025

If you have any comments or suggestions for ways to improve this website, please email website.enquiries@judiciary.uk