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

Administrative CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: CO/371/2022

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

31 May 2022

Before:

Richard Clayton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The Queen on the application of
TAI

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department


Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by Richard Clayton QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

1. The Claimant’s application for an anonymity order is granted.
2. The Claimant’s application to rely on his Reply and a witness statement dated 28 March 2022 is granted.
3. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
4. No order for costs.

Reasons

1. I grant the anonymity order and accept the Claimant’s submissions set out in section 9 of the Claim Form.
2. I grant the Claimant’s application to rely on his Reply and his witness statement and accept the submissions advanced in the application for this purpose.
3. In his Amended Grounds the Claimant contends that the Defendant has delayed in providing the Claimant with accommodation and has purported to disapply her duty under s 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. His Reply states at paragraph 8 that particular reliance is placed on the Defendant’s assertion in pre action correspondence that “Section 98 support is not intended for Foreign National Offenders in the UK and thus these referrals are not considered or progressed by the FNO RC accommodation scheme”.
It is not realistically arguable on the material before the Court that Defendant takes the position that foreign national offenders are not eligible for s 98 support. I accept the Defendant’s submission that it is merely asserting that applications for s 98 support are processed by the NAAU, not the FNO RC and that it does not publish a policy to the effect that foreign national offenders are not eligible for s 98 support.
4. The Claimant’s second ground that the decision to impose and to continue to impose an electronic monitoring condition on the Claimant and is unlawful is also not realistically arguable. I note the Defendant’s submission that the FTT when granting bail to a detained person must impose an electronic monitoring condition in accordance with Sch 10 para 2(3)(a) of the Immigration Act 2016 (subject to the exception under Sch 10 para 2(7) that it being impracticable or in breach of Convention rights and that the Claimant’s submissions are, therefore, misconceived.
5. I also accept the Defendant’s submissions set out in her Summary Grounds at paras 12 to 20.