TAN -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionOrder

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-003627

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

22 October 2025

Before:

Mr Justice Johnson

Between:

The King on the application of
TAN

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

On an application by the claimant for an injunction to restrain his removal to France on 22 October 2025

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the claimant

And upon hearing Gordon Lee of counsel for the claimant and Lucy King of counsel for the defendant at a hearing conducted remotely by Teams between 7.45pm and 9.45pm ORDER by Mr Justice Johnson

  1. For the purpose of this application, and solely to preserve the position, the claimant is granted anonymity and is, until further order, to be referred to in these proceedings as TAN (“the cipher”). The claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not to be disclosed in any proceedings in open court. There is to be substituted for all purposes in these proceedings in place of references to the claimant by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to the cipher. Pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4): (a) The parties must, when filing any statement of case, also file a redacted copy of that statement of case omitting the name, address and any other information which could lead to the identification of the claimant. (b) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4(C)(6), no non-party may obtain an unredacted copy of any statement of case.
  2. Any person affected by paragraph 1 above may apply to vary or discharge that paragraph by written application served on each party.
  3. The order at paragraph 1 above must, if not set aside before then, be reconsidered when the application for permission to claim judicial review is determined.
  4. The application for an injunction is refused.
  5. The defendant must provide a copy of the medical report of Dr Johnson dated 20 October 2025 to the French authorities so that it is available to those responsible for receiving the claimant in France before he arrives.
  6. The claimant must lodge any draft amended grounds for claiming judicial review by 4pm on 23 October 2025.
  7. The defendant must file an acknowledgement of service and summary grounds by 4pm on 24 October 2025.
  8. In the event that the claimant wishes to pursue an application for an order that he is permitted to return to the United Kingdom then he must file that application by 4pm on 27 October 2025.
  9. The papers are to be put before a judge to consider the application for permission to claim judicial review, and any application for the claimant to be permitted to return to the United Kingdom, on, or as soon as is practicable after, 28 October 2025.
  10. Permission to appeal is refused.
  11. Costs reserved.

Reasons

Serious issue to be tried

The initial grounds of claim have been overtaken by events because, at 4.28pm today, the defendant decided that there were no reasonable grounds to conclude that the claimant is a victim of trafficking. I am satisfied that (on the basis of compressed argument within limited time) the low threshold of a serious issue to be tried is surmounted in respect of that decision because the treatment of the expert report (at page 7) does not explicitly grapple with the content of the medical report which does make a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and which does say that the claimant’s mental health may provide an explanation for inconsistencies. Whether that renders the decision flawed on public law grounds (in circumstances where there were very significant inconsistencies on fundamental points) is another matter, but that is not an issue for now.

Balance of convenience

The medical report makes reference to a high risk of suicide in France or Iran, without distinguishing between the two, and without taking account of the fact that the claimant will be returned to Paris where there will be reception facilities. I will direct that the medical report be provided to the French authorities. It has not been shown that the French authorities would be unable to provide the claimant with any necessary medical care, including in respect of his mental health and the prevention of suicide, or that he would be at real risk of immediate harm if he is returned to France. He would be able to continue to pursue his claim from France. I have granted expedition, with a view to a permission decision being made within a short period of time, potentially within 7-14 days. That will enable the court to assess the merits of the claim with the benefit of representations from both sides. If, at that stage, it is shown that the claimant is at real risk of harm then it would be open to the Court, by way of interim relief, to make an order requiring the defendant to permit the claimant to return to the United Kingdom. Given that there is no evidence of an immediate risk to the claimant on return to France, allowing the removal to take its course, but with the potential for him to return if there is shown to be a longer term risk, would provide a sufficient safeguard the claimant.
Conversely, there is a strong public interest in the Secretary of State being able to pursue her “1 in 1 out” policy unless or until it is shown to be unlawful or that, in an individual case, a return decision (or a necessary step towards making the return decision) is unlawful. If the court grants interim relief in cases where that has not been shown, then that would be injurious to the public interest. It would reduce the deterrent effect which is fundamental to the intended purpose of the policy so as to reduce large-scale unlawful and unsafe attempts to enter the United Kingdom. This militates strongly in favour of refusing interim relief. In these circumstances, the balance of convenience strongly militates in favour of the grant of expedition, but against the grant of interim relief.