TR -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Case number: JR-2026-LON-002195
High Court of Justice,
King’s Bench Division
In the matter of an application
under CPR 3.3(5) to discharge an order
7 July 2026
Before:
The Hon Mrs. Justice Thornton
Between:
R
on the application of
TR
(Applicant, anonymity order made)
-v-
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Respondent)
Order
UPON consideration of the Respondent’s application notice dated 6 July 2026 to set aside the Order of Upper Tribunal Judge Owens dated 6 July 2026 at 15:09.
AND UPON hearing oral submissions from Counsel for the Respondent, Simon Bell, and Counsel for the Applicant, Niamh Fegan, by means of an out-of-hours hearing, held via Microsoft Teams from 00.02 am – 1.45 am on 7 July 2026.
AND UPON the Court determining that the balance of convenience requires expedition of the Applicant’s application for permission to bring his claim for judicial review in the Upper Tribunal
It is ORDERED that:
- The Order of Upper Tribunal Judge Owens of 6 July 2026 is set aside
- For the purposes of this application and solely to preserve the position the Applicant is granted anonymity and is until further order to be referred to in these proceedings as TR.
- Any person affected by paragraph 2 above may apply to vary or discharge the paragraph by written application
- The order at paragraph 2 above must, if not set aside before then, be reconsidered when the application for permission to apply for judicial review is determined.
- The application for interim relief is refused
- A copy of the Rule 35 Report dated 7th June 2026 shall be provided to the French Authorities at the same time as the Applicant is returned to France so that it is available to those responsible for receiving the Applicant.
- The time for the Respondent to file her acknowledgement of service is abridged to 7 days, with filing due by 4 pm on 15th July 2026
- The issue of permission to be determined by the Upper Tribunal on the papers as soon as practicable thereafter
- Costs reserved.
On this 7 day of July 2026
REASONS
Full reasons are provided in the extempore judgment given at the end of the Teams hearing. The following summary is provided for information only.
Upper Tribunal Order
The order of the Upper Tribunal judge staying removal was made without hearing the parties or giving them an opportunity to make representations. The reasons indicate the modified American Cyanamid test was not applied (R(AYA) v SSHD [2026] 552 (Admin).
Serious issue to be tried
The Applicant has not established a serious issue to be tried on the grounds raised. Read fairly and as a whole, the decision letter concludes that the Applicant did not give a true account of his reasons for not claiming asylum in France. The rule 35 report is not a medico legal report. The Article 3 threshold is not met (AM Zimbabwe). Whilst mental health barriers exist in France, they do not amount to systemic failure or a general Article 3 risk (AYA). Article 8 factors were considered in the decision. Read fairly and as a whole, the author draws on relevant findings (as to which there is no dispute) to conclude that the human rights claim is bound to fail.
Balance of convenience
I direct that the rule 35 report is to be provided to the French authorities. It has not been shown that the Applicant would be at real risk of immediate harm if returned to France. He can pursue his claim from France. I have granted expedition, with a view to a permission decision being made within a short period of time. It is open to the Applicant to make a further application for interim relief if it is shown that he is at real risk of harm. This provides sufficient safeguard for the Applicant. Conversely, there is a strong public interest in the Secretary of State being able to pursue her policy of seeking to deter small boat crossings (AYA).
It follows that even if there had been a serious issue to be tried on the ground of claim, I would have refused interim relief.