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

Immigration and Asylum Chamber (Upper Tribunal)Anonymity Order

Case number: JR-2025-MAN-000085

In the Upper Tribunal
(Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Judicial Review

In the matter of an application for permission to apply for Judicial Review

30 July 2025

Before:

Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson

Between:

The King
on the application of
SPX

and

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (UT rule 30(1))

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the applicant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the respondent

Order by Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson:

Anonymity order granted:

  1. Until further order the proceedings shall be anonymised in accordance with the following directions:

a. There shall be substituted, for all purposes in this case, in place of references to the Applicants by name, the letters “SPX”.

b. To the extent necessary to protect the identity of the Applicant or their location, any other references, whether to persons or places or otherwise, be adjusted appropriately.

c. So far as the claim form, or any judgment or order, or any other document to which any person may request from the Tribunal’s file does not comply with the above, the Applicant’s solicitors have leave to file with the Tribunal redacted copies of such documents adjusted so as to comply, which are to be treated for all purposes as being in substitution for the relevant originals. The originals are then to be retained by the Tribunal in a sealed envelope marked “Not to be opened without permission of a Judge”.

d. A non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document from the Tribunal’s file without the permission of a Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on at least 3 days’ notice to the Applicant.

e. A non-party may not obtain a copy of any statement of case or other document from the Tribunal file unless it has been anonymised in accordance with this paragraph.

  1. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice to vary this order, including by affected non-parties to this Order.

Permission to file a reply to the Acknowledgement of Service refused.

Permission is refused.

Reasons

  1. There is no provision in the Upper Tribunal Procedure Rules for the filing of a reply to the Acknowledgement of Service. The interests of justice do not require permission to be granted to file one on the facts of this application.
  2. Date of claim: 6 June 2025.
  3. Date of impugned decision: 6 March 2025.
  4. Nature of impugned decision: refusal of applicants Asylum and human rights claims and certification of the same as being ‘clearly unfounded’ pursuant to section 94(1) Nationality, Immigration Asylum Act 2002.
  5. Section 5 of the application for judicial review also seeks to challenge the Respondent’s policy entitled ‘Certification protection and human rights claims under s94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (clearly unfounded claims), version 7.0, dated 8 November 2023 and in force at the time of the decision under challenge.
  6. Grounds of challenge: the decision to certify was unlawful, unreasonable and fails to consider the Applicant’s claims at its highest, that the decision to certify is unfair as there is no “minded to process”, and that the Respondent certification policy is unlawful as it fails to provide for a ‘minded to’ process which would render the procedure fair and/or in any event the certification policy itself is unfair, for the reasons set out in the pleadings of Miranda Butler of Landmark Chambers dated 6 June 2025.
  7. In her acknowledgement of service sealed on the 2 July 2025 the Respondent confirms at [2] that she has agreed to reconsider the impugned decision of 6 March 2025 rendering Ground 1 academic.
  8. In relation to the Applicants submission that notwithstanding the decision to reconsider the case is not arguably academic, it is arguable that in relation to the impugned decision there is no longer a case to be decided.
  9. In relation to the claim Grounds 2 and 3 could directly affect the rights and obligations of other parties, it is not made out there is any arguable public law error in the Respondent’s guidance in relation to certification of immigration and asylum appeals in not adopting a ‘minded to’ process similar to that applicable in other aspects of immigration law.
  10. As noted at [18] of the Summary Grounds of Defence the common law duty to act fairly does not always require a particular process to be followed before a decision is reached and it is unarguable that procedural fairness requires consideration of context and is fact specific. A duty to follow a ‘minded to’ process has been recognised in cases where a pre-existing right is adversely affected, such as revocation of the sponsor’s licence of which the applicant was not aware, where the Secretary of State is minded to refuse indefinite leave to remain under paragraph 322(5) on the basis of the appellant’s dishonesty or other reprehensible conduct, and in which it was accepted that the principle of fairness required such process to be adopted.
  11. The duty in a protection or immigration cases is for an individual to provide such evidence as they are seeking to rely upon to establish an entitlement under the Immigration Rules or relevant Convention. An asylum application will, in the majority of cases, be interviewed about their asylum claim on two occasions, in the screening interview and substantive asylum interview. It is unarguable that the required degree of flexibility exists within the system and guidance in relation to questions to be asked and opportunities to provide additional evidence, and in a certification case there is no consideration of the credibility of the claim as the claim is taken at its highest.
  12. The function of a minded to process would be for the decision-maker to inform the individual of their provisional findings or concerns and provide them with the opportunity to respond and offer further information before a final decision is made. It is not established that not having such a process in relation to applications of that under consideration is arguably unfair when an applicant has ample opportunity to put forward all the material they are seeking to rely upon as part of the current existing procedure in any event.
  13. There is no arguable merit in the assertion underpinning the Applicant’s pleadings in relation to Grounds 2 and 3 that the Respondent’s procedures set out in the certification guidance is arguably unfair or unlawful. It is not made out, in particular, that without the introduction of a ‘minded to’ process in relation to such applications that decision made under the same will be arguably unfair, per se.

    Costs
  14. The Applicant will pay the Respondent’s costs of £1,376.50, subject to any representations in writing to be received within 9 days of the date on which this order is sent.

Reasons

  1. The Respondent is the successful party entitled to her costs.
  2. Neither the hourly rate charged nor time taken in relation to the preparation and filing of the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence has been shown to be unreasonable or disproportionate.

Signed: C J Hanson

Upper Tribunal Judge Hanson

Dated: 30 July 2025