Taha Yassin -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Order)
Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order
Case number: AC-2024-LON-003145
In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court
In the matter of an application for judicial review
21 September 2024
Before:
the Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie
Between:
The King
on the application of
Taha Yassin (Claimant)
-v-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Defendant)
and
(1) The Secretary of State for Justice (Interested Party)
(2) The London Borough of Harringay (Interested Party)
(3) The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Interested Party)
Order
BEFORE the Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie, sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice, the Strand, London on 21.9.2024 in the immediates list.
WITHIN the claim for judicial review dated 18.9.2024 and for interim relief and final relief by way of mandatory injunction and damages.
ON AN APPLICATION dated 18.9.2024 for urgent consideration.
FOLLOWING CONSIDERATION of the documents lodged by the Claimant in the application bundle. The Defendant not yet having been served or filed an acknowledgement of service.
AND UPON this Court considering that there are reasonable grounds for urgent consideration.
UPON CONSIDERING an application for anonymity by the Claimant.
AND UPON consideration of the Claimants’ Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life and the Article 10 rights to freedom of expression;
AND UPON IT APPEARING that non-disclosure of the identity of the Claimant is not necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant.
AND PURSUANT to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section II of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C and 5.4D of the Civil Procedure Rules.
NOW IT IS ORDERED THAT:
Anonymity
1. The application is refused.
Defendant’s Response
2. Within 7 days of the service of this order on the Defendant, the Defendant shall file and serve: (1) an Acknowledgement of Service and (2) any evidence and (3) written submissions in response to the Claimant’s application for interim relief and (4) any Summary Grounds of defence relied upon and (5) any authorities relied upon.
Harringay
3. The second Interested Party shall file and serve any response to the Claimant’s assertion that he will be street homeless on release from detention despite having applied for housing to the second Interested Party.
Claimants’ further evidence
4. Within 7 days of the date for the service and filing of the documents in 2 and 3 above the Claimant shall serve and file any evidence in response.
Papers returned to a High Court Judge
5. The papers shall be put urgently before a High Court Judge if, and only if, the Claimant so requests in writing. Such request shall be served and filed on or before 4pm on 1.11.2024.
Interim relief application
6. The Defendant is to refrain until further Order of the Court from releasing the Claimant from detention without the Claimant first having obtained or been promised accommodation. This order shall expire at 4pm on 7.11.2024.
Variation
7. Liberty to apply to set aside or vary the terms of this order on written application to be filed and served within 7 days hereof.
Costs
8. Costs reserved.
Reasons
1. The Claimant is a vulnerable individual who was a class A drugs user. He poses some risk to the public because he has in the last 24 months been convicted of a criminal offence involving a knife.
2. The Claimant has been held by the Defendant in detention since August 2023. His case is that the detention was and is unlawful because he has indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
3. The judicial review claim purportedly relates to the whole time since August 2023 (an asserted ongoing decision). The asserted reason for his detention is the Defendant’s failure to find him accommodation and the absence of a policy to effect safe release of those held in “immigration” detention by avoiding homelessness.
4. The Claimant made an application for Asylum support and accommodation under s4(2) of the Immigration Act 1999 on 10 June 2024 and was refused on 21 August 2024 because he was entitled to State Benefits and Local Authority accommodation.
5. On 27.8.2024 the Defendant decided to authorise the Claimant to be released to “no fixed abode”. On 13.9.2024 the Defendant announced he would be released. It is asserted that this decision made the application urgent. The Claimant does not wish to be released only to become homeless.
6. The evidence relating to the Claimant’s applications for State Benefits and housing is skimpy and/or inadequate. I do not see why the Claimant should be in any better position than any other properly entitled applicant, especially those with young children, for Local Authority housing. The second Interested Party is not a Defendant to the claim and an order is not requested against them.
7. I have read the PAP letters. This is better decided once the Defendant’s position and arguments are made clear to the Court.
8. However, the Claimant being vulnerable, the balance of convenience weighs in the Claimant’s favour for a short interim order lasting until the Court receives submissions from the Defendant and the second Interested Party on what is proposed and what they accept the Claimant is entitled to by way of accommodation. Thereafter the case may be determined on paper or if a future Judge should so decide, at a hearing.
9. I do not consider, on the evidence and arguments put before me, that anonymity is warranted in this case. The principle of open justice prevails.
Signed: Mr Justice Ritchie
Made: 21.9.2024