U3 -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Anonymity Order

Case Number: SC/153/2018

In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission

31 October 2019





Secretary of State for the Home Department



ON the Appellant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003 and for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’)

ON the Legal Representatives’ having been notified of the application on 11th September 2019 by email, and having made no objection to the application.

ON considering the documents (‘the documents’) lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (the Practice Note’):

  1. Legal Submissions;
  2. Witness Statement of Chris Mckendry

AND ON the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order:


  1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as U3.
  2. Nothing may be published which, directly, or indirectly, identifies him as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
  3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
  4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application whereupon this order will continue for the duration of the determination of that application.


  1. U3 was deprived of citizenship on 18 April 2017 on the basis of an allegation U3 was aligned with ISIL. U3 appealed this decision from outside the UK. U3’s children are in the UK, being cared for by her mother.
  2. Her representatives are taking instructions in order to make an application for entry clearance outside the Immigration Rules in order to enable her to attend her appeal in person. They contend that some of the material on which they are taking instructions may further support an application for anonymity, but that they have not yet finished taking instructions. They argue that a requirement to serve detailed evidence at this stage in support for the application for anonymity will compromise their preparations for the appeal and for the application for entry clearance, in circumstances where the Secretary of State has not yet served material pursuant to rule 10 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003. In those circumstances, her representatives contend that the current anonymity order should continue, at the least, in order to protect the U3’s position, until a fully informed application can be made, on the undrstanding that the order will be revisited once the Appellant’s preparations are complete.
  3. The application is also based on U3’s fears for her own safety (both from third party actors and from her estranged husband), and for the wellbeing of her three children, who are being cared for by her mother.
  4. Her representatives also contend that if an anonymity order is not made, the effectiveness of the appeal will be affected, for example because witnesses will be deterred from giving evidence and, that if the appeal succeeds, there is a real risk U3’s integration into the UK would be significantly compromised.
  5. In the circumstances, the continuation of the anonymity order is a necessary and proportionate interference with the principle of open justice. To the extent that the order interferes with Convention rights of the press and the public, that interference is necessary to protect U3’s position by countering potential article 3 risks to her.