SPB and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-003330

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

20 July 2026

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE

Between:

The King
on the application of
(1) SPB
(acting as Litigation Friend for SPH and SPY)
(2) SPH
(3) SPY
(Claimants)

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Defendant)

Order

On applications by the Claimants for anonymity and interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimants in support of their applications

ORDER by the Honourable Mrs Justice O’Farrell DBE

  1. The Claimants’ application for anonymity is granted as follows.

a. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

i. the Claimants’ names are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

ii. the Claimants are to be referred to orally and in writing as follows: the First Claimant as “SPB”, the Second Claimant as “SPH”, the Third Claimant as “SPY”; and

iii. the mother of the Second and Third Claimants is to be referred to orally and in writing as “SHP”.

b. Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimants or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants 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 and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants;  

ii. if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimants, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;

iii. unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

d. The Court’s CE-file system shall be clearly marked with the words “An anonymity order was made in this case on 20 July 2026 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.”

e. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

f. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(5) and the Practice Guidance: Publication of Privacy and Anonymity Orders dated 16 April 2019 a copy of this order shall be published on the Judicial Website of the High Court of Justice (www.judiciary.uk). For that purpose, a court officer will send a copy of the order by email to the Judicial Office at judicialwebupdates@judiciary.uk.

  1. The time for service of the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Response is abridged to 7 days after service of the Claim Form and Statement of Facts and Grounds.
  2. The application for an urgent interim order for disclosure and any other interim applications are adjourned pending the Acknowledgement of Service and response to the application.
  3. Costs reserved to the decision on permission for Judicial Review.

Reasons

  1. The Second and Third Claimants are young children. The case can be fully reported without them being named. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice made in paragraph 1 of the order.
  2. On 17 July 2026 the Claim Form was issued by the Claimants for judicial review, seeking relief including: (i) an order quashing the Defendant’s decision dated 19 April 2026 to withdraw the passport application of SPH; (ii) a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to process, issue and dispatch British passports in respect of SPH and SPY; (iii) a declaration that the Defendant’s delay in issuing the passports is unlawful, irrational and in breach of its statutory duties and published operational policies; (iv) an order requiring the Defendant to return the Claimants’ documents; and (v) damages.
  3. The Claimant seeks an urgent interim order for disclosure but the Defendant must have an opportunity to respond to the application.  
  4. Although SPB asserts that he and the other Claimants have suffered severe physical and psychological harm, no details have been provided and there is no documentary evidence to support this. The court is not in a position, in the absence of a response by the Defendant, to form a view on the merits.
  5. There is no urgency so as to justify granting interim relief on a without notice basis.

Signed: Mrs Justice O’Farrell