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

Administrative CourtCivilHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000542

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

In the matter of an application for judicial review

7 April 2025

Before:

Andrew Kinnier K.C.
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

Between:

UCK

-v-

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence and, in particular, upon the Court noting the Defendant’s proposed re-consideration of the decision of 20 February 2025 to refuse the Claimant’s further submission as to a fresh claim and to make a re- considered order within three months of the date of the sealed order (see paras. 3 and 20 of the Summary Grounds of Defence)

ORDER BY ANDREW KINNIER K.C.
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)

  1. Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and
(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “UCK”.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the 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.

(c) Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

  1. Permission and transfer of proceedings:

(a) Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
(b) The Claimant’s claim for false imprisonment is transferred to the Central London County Court for directions and trial.

  1. Costs: No order as to costs.

4. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for re-consideration (see notes below), the following directions apply:

(a) The permission hearing is to be listed with a time estimate of 30 minutes, including submissions by the parties and an oral judgment by the judge. If the Claimant considers that more time should be allowed, the time estimate must be included with the request for reconsideration of permission.

(b) Within 21 days of the service of this Order, the Claimant must file and serve an electronic copy of the Permission Hearing Bundle, prepared in accordance with the guidance on the Administrative Court website and containing the following documents:

(i) the Claim Form, Statement of Facts and Grounds and any evidence or other documents filed with the Claim Form;

(ii) any Acknowledgment of Service, Summary Grounds of Defence and any accompanying documents served by any Defendant and/or Interested Party; 

(iii) any Reply or other document served by any party to the proceedings at the paper permission stage;

(iv) this Order;

(v) the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review (on Form 86B);

(vi) any other document the Court would be likely to consider material to its decision on permission to apply for judicial review.

(c) If the Claimant fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), permission will be determined on the basis of the renewal notice and the documents before the Court at the paper stage, unless at the hearing the Court otherwise directs.

(d) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, the Claimant must file and serve:

(i) a skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages;

(ii) an electronic bundle containing any authorities which the Court needs to read at the hearing (the Authorities Bundle: see para. 22.1.2 of the Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide); and

(iii) if requested by the Court, a hard copy version of the Permission Hearing Bundle and Authorities Bundles.

(e) At least 7 days before the date listed for the hearing, any party other than the Claimant intending to participate in the hearing must file and serve any skeleton argument, maximum 10 pages.

(f) If a party fails to comply with sub-paragraph (b), (d) and/or (e), the Court may have regard to the failure when considering any question about costs at the hearing.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: The Claimant is potentially a victim of torture and her claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in para. 1.

(2) Permission: permission is refused essentially for the reasons set out in the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence. In particular: 

(a) Once the Defendant was released from immigration detention on 5 March 2025, Ground A (detention) became academic. Consequently, her claim for damages for false imprisonment is transferred to the Central London County Court for directions and trial.
(b) Ground B (maintenance of removal directions) was also rendered academic once
the directions were withdrawn on 21 February 2025.
(c) Further, the Defendant’s proposed re-consideration of the fresh claims refusal
decision of 20 February 2025 also renders that element of the challenge academic. (d) Ground C (certification/fresh claim): no arguable error of law is disclosed for the reasons set out in paras. 7-18 of the Defendant’s Summary Grounds. If and to the extent to which the Claimant seeks to challenge the certification of her asylum and human rights claim on 12 November 2024, any such challenge is not expressly/clearly identified in the Detailed Grounds but, in any event, it is out of
time.

(3) Costs: having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the Defendant’s submissions at paras. 22-24 of her Summary Grounds of Defence), the appropriate order is no order.

Signed: Andrew Kinnier K.C.
Date: 7 April 2025