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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: CO/651/2023

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

27 July 2023

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

The King on the application of
TS

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department (HO Ref: S1831203)

Order

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 Acknowledgment of service filed by the Defendant;
Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted on Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 7.
  2. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused on Grounds 4, 5 and 6.
  3. The hearing is to be listed for 1½ days; the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.
  4. Case not suitable for hearing by a Deputy High Court Judge.
  5. Venue: London.
  6. The Claimant is granted permission to rely upon her Reply.
  7. Pursuant to CPR r.39.2, in any report of these proceedings, there shall be no publication of the name and address of the Claimant, nor any other particulars likely to lead to their identification. In the proceedings, the Claimant shall be anonymised and referred to as “TS”.
  8. No later than 14 days from service of this Order, the Claimant’s solicitors shall file with the Court copies of case documents which have been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 7 above.
  9. Non-parties may not obtain any documents from the court file which have not been anonymised and/or redacted to protect the identity of the Claimant, in accordance with paragraph 7 above.
  10. Venue: London.
  11. Costs in the case.

Case Management Directions

  1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on.
  2. The Claimant may file and serve any Reply and any further evidence within 21 days of the date of service of the Detailed Grounds and/or evidence.
  3. The Claimant must file and serve an agreed hearing bundle, not less than 28 days before the date of the hearing. The electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant must also lodge two hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle at the Administrative Court Office, not less than 28 days before the date of the hearing.
  4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing.
  5. The Defendant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 4 days before the date of the hearing.
  6. The Claimant must file and serve an agreed authorities bundle, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing. The electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared by the Claimant in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The Claimant must also lodge a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle at the Administrative Court Office, not less than 5 days before the date of the hearing.
  7. If permission has been granted on some grounds but refused on others, the Claimant may request that the decision to refuse permission be reconsidered at a hearing by filing and serving a completed Form 86B within 7 days after the date this order is served on the Claimant. The reconsideration hearing will be fixed in due course.

Observations

  1. The Claimant seeks permission to apply for judicial review of:
    a. the Defendant’s decisions to refuse ECAT leave (temporary discretionary leave available to confirmed victims of modern slavery); and
    b. the Defendant’s failure to make a decision on the Claimant’s asylum claim.
  2. After this claim was issued, on 27 April 2023, the Defendant granted the Claimant refugee status, and her dependant child was granted leave in line with the Claimant. Therefore the principal relief sought under Grounds 4 to 7 – a mandatory order to determine the asylum claim – has been granted. As the Claimant has succeeded in obtaining the relief sought, and is no longer an asylum seeker, the Court will not spend time analysing the lawfulness of past conduct and systemic weaknesses in administration merely because the Claimant has asked for extensive declarations, which are a discretionary remedy. Here the only remaining live issue is the Claimant’s human rights claim for damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, in regard to the alleged unlawful delay in determining her asylum claim and permission is limited to determination of that issue. Therefore I have only granted permission on Ground 7, whilst recognising that the Claimant can properly rely on aspects of her pleading under Grounds 4 – 6, but only in support of Ground 7. I consider that Ground 7 is arguable.
  3. The refusal to grant ECAT leave is a separate issue to the grant of asylum. Under Grounds 1 and 2, the Claimant alleges that the decisions to refuse ECAT leave were unlawful. She applies for the decisions to be quashed and reconsidered. The Defendant has offered to re-consider them, without making any concessions as to their lawfulness, and only as part of an overall Consent Order on which the parties have been unable to agree. Therefore, this issue has not become academic. Under Ground 3, the Claimant alleges that the decisions are in breach of Articles 4 and 8 ECHR, and give rise to a claim for damages. In my view, Grounds 1 to 3 are arguable.
  4. I have carefully considered whether to transfer the claim, or part thereof, to the County Court, but I have decided that it would not further the overriding objective to do so.
  5. Grounds 1 and 2 can only be determined in the Administrative Court because quashing orders are sought. It would be a wasteful duplication of court resources to transfer Ground 3 to another court for determination since it is concerned with the same decisions as Grounds 1 and 2.
  6. Similarly, I consider it would be a wasteful duplication of court resources to order Ground 7 to be heard separately in the County Court, while Grounds 1 to 3 which concern the same Claimant are determined in the Administrative Court.