T7 and CD -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC/LON/2024/001788

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

29 May 2024


Mr Justice Jay


The King on the application of
“T7” and “CD” (by his Litigation Friend EF)


Secretary of State for the Home Department


Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
(interested party)


UPON considering the applications set out in the Claimants’ Claim Form, submissions in support of the applications for anonymity and expedition, and the witness statement of the Claimants’ solicitor dated 28 May 2024;

AND PURSUANT TO CPR 39.2(4) , CPR 5.4C(4), s 11 of the Contempt of Court Act and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, the Court being satisfied that it is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice;


Preliminary Issue

1. Given the existence of extant SIAC proceedings, the Court will determine in the first instance the following preliminary issue: whether it is appropriate in all the
circumstances of this case for these proceedings to continue in the Administrative Court rather than in SIAC.

2. The Defendant shall serve his Acknowledgment of Service, including his Summary Grounds of Defence, by 5pm on 10 June 2024. For the avoidance of doubt, these pleadings should not be limited to the preliminary issue but should also address the merits of the claim.

3. The Interested Party shall serve any response to the Claimants’ Statement of Facts and Grounds and the applications set out therein by 5pm on 10 June 2024. The second sentence of para 2 above applies.

4. The hearing of the preliminary issue should take place on before the end of June 2024, time estimate 3 hours. The Court will fix the hearing date without regard to the availability of Counsel and Jay J (who is otherwise engaged in SIAC for most if not all of June). In the event that the claim proceeds thereafter in the Administrative Court, directions will be set.

5. The Special Advocates appointed to act for the Claimant in her section 2 and section 2F SIACA 1997 proceedings do attend the hearing.

CPR 21.5

6. The requirement of CPR 21.5(4) that the Certificate of Suitability and Claim Form be served on the Claimant’s parent or guardian be dispensed with.

Reporting restrictions

7. Until further order, there shall be no publication of the identity of the First Claimant, the Second Claimant, or the Second Claimant’s Litigation Friend, or of any matter liable to lead to their identification in connection with these proceedings. This includes the information set out in the Confidential Schedule to this order. Nothing in this order shall prevent the Claimant from serving the Confidential Schedule on any non-party.


8. The names of the First Claimant, the Second Claimant, and the Second Claimant’s Litigation Friend are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in open court.

9. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings, and whether orally or in writing:
a. In place of references to the First Claimant, references to “T7”;
b. In place of references to the Second Claimant, references to “CD”;
c. In place of references to the Second Claimant’s Litigation Friend, references to “EF”.

10. A non-party may not obtain or inspect, pursuant to CPR 5.4A-D or otherwise:
d. a copy of any statement of case or any other document filed with the Court, unless it has been produced or edited so as to comply with the requirements of paragraphs 1-2 of this order and/or any subsequent order made by the Court;
e. a copy of (i) the Confidential Schedule to the statement of Alexandra Rowe dated 28 May 2024, (ii) the confidential exhibits to that statement, or (iii) the Confidential Schedule to this order.

11. Any non-party wishing to obtain or inspect documents in the case must do so by making an application to the Court, to be served on both parties, on 48 hours’ notice.

Publication of the order

12. A copy of this order, excluding the Confidential Schedule, is to be published on the website of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

Liberty to apply

13. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this order must make an application to the Court, served on each party.


It is clear from the Defendant’s response to the Pre-Action Protocol letter that this claim is opposed in the first instance on the ground that it should continue to proceed in SIAC (where I note that it is proceeding slowly) rather than in the Administrative Court.

Given the points raised by the Defendant, it is appropriate that the Court determines them first. This is because those points have some force. What it being sought on the Claimants’ behalf is, in effect, a mandatory Order compelling the Defendant and IP to facilitate their return to the UK in circumstances where (1) Parliament has specified a route of challenge (in SIAC) and (2) the national security case will not have been tested, either properly or at all. This is somewhat ambitious although in very exceptional circumstances the Court could be persuaded to make the interim orders sought.

Overall, the overriding objective requires the early determination of this issue before the merits are considered.

I have also considered whether the Defendant may be ordered to file CLOSED Summary Grounds of Defence. In the light of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the procedures laid down therein, I am not satisfied that I have power to order this.