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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-003446

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

30 October 2024

Before:

David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
SK

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the Claimant for urgent consideration, interim relief, directions, and anonymity

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by David Pievsky KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge:

1. The Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public in connection with these proceedings and is to be referred to instead as “SK”. 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. Pursuant to CPR r5.4(c), a person not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of the statement of case, judgment or order of the court only if anonymised.

2. The Defendant shall file and serve any submissions (a) in response to the Claimant’s application for interim relief, and any evidence relied upon in support, and (b) in relation to whether the anonymity order set out at paragraph 1 above should or should not continue, or be varied, no later than 4pm on 8 November 2024.

3. The Claimant may file and serve a reply to the Defendant’s response no later than 4pm on 12 November 2024.

4. As soon as possible thereafter, the application for interim relief shall be determined by a Judge or Deputy Judge, on the papers.

5. Liberty to apply, giving at least 48 hours’ written notice to the other party.

6. Costs in the case.

Reasons

1. On the face of it there appears to be a serious issue to be tried here, along a degree of urgency, given the ongoing (19 month) delay in dispersal to s.95 accommodation, and the realities of family life in a single hotel room (said to be cramped and damp) with a baby: see generally R (SA) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 1787 (Admin). But the Court lacks information about the extent to which the Claimant’s description of the current accommodation is an agreed fact, and about the Defendant’s conduct thus far and intention going forward. In any event the degree of urgency is not in my Judgment such that a mandatory order would be appropriate before even hearing what the Defendant has to say. The directions sought were in principle appropriate: I have specified actual dates, rather than lengths of time, so as to promote certainty.

2. Balancing the fundamental importance of open justice on the one hand, against the risks to the Claimant on the other (an asylum seeker claiming a risk on return), an anonymity order is in my judgment justified in this case, at least for the time being. If the Defendant has any concerns about anonymity, that should be raised in the response.