UXF -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)
Claim number: AC-2025-LON-000578
In the Administrative Court
26 February 2025
Before:
The Hon. Mrs Justice Stacey
Between:
The King on the application of
UXF
-v-
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Order
UPON reading the Claimant’s Bundle and Application for Urgent Consideration (N463);
AND PURSUANT to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and CPR Rule 5.4A to 5.4D and CPR Rule 39.2(4);
ORDER by the Hon. Mrs Justice Stacey:
Anonymity
1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 there be substituted for all purposes of this case, in place of references to the Claimant’s by name, and whether orally or in writing, references to “UXF”;
2. 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.
3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C(4):
a. the parties must within 7 days file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;
b. 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 and must then be served with the unredacted version;
c. unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
4. Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.
5. The address of the Claimant be stated in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings as the address of the Claimant’s solicitors.
6. To the extent necessary to protect the Claimant’s identity, any other references, whether to persons or places or otherwise, be adjusted appropriately with permission of the parties.
7. In so far as necessary, any statement of case or other document disclosing the Claimant’s name or address already filed in the proceedings be replaced by a document describing such name or address in anonymised form as above.
8. The original of any such document disclosing the names or addresses of the Claimant or the alleged perpetrators are to be placed on the Court file in a sealed envelope marked “not to be opened without the permission of a Judge of the Administrative Court”.
9. That a non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court file (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) without the permission of a Judge of the Administrative Court. Any application for such permission must be made on notice to the Claimant, and the Court will effect service. The file is to be retained by the Court and marked “Anonymised”.
10. That reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant or alleged perpetrators. The publication of the name and addresses of the Claimant or of any member of the Claimant’s immediate family or the alleged perpetrators is prohibited.
11. That any non-party affected by this Order may apply on notice to all parties to have the Order set aside or varied.
Directions
12. The Defendant do file her response to the application for interim relief by 4pm on Monday 4 March 2025.
13. The hearing of the Claimant’s application for interim relief be listed for an inter partes hearing at the earliest reasonable opportunity on or after Thursday 6 March 2025 with a time estimate 2 hours.
14. Liberty to apply to vary this order, on reasonable notice to the parties.
Reasons
- The Applicant is an asylum/international protection seeker and it is necessary under Article 8 ECHR to respect her private and family life to preserve her anonymity for the time being at this interim stage There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraphs 1-11. The issue may be re-visited in due course if and when further material information comes to light.
- The Applicant seeks to ensure that the Respondent has properly considered her representations opposing the Respondent’s intention to disperse her to Swindon on a “no choice” basis, before confirming her decision. The Applicant is concerned that the decision letter of 18 February 2025 stated that “no documents have been forthcoming” following an earlier decision on 27 January 2025, when further representations were made and further evidence and documents provided on 27 January, 5 February and 17 February 2025. The
Applicant is concerned that the failure to refer to the further representations and evidence submitted in the 18 February 2025 and an assertion that she had not provided documents letter means that they were not taken into account before the dispersal decision was made. The Respondent has thus failed to take into account relevant factors before making the decision and it is said that the decision is vitiated. - The Applicant is at risk of dispersal without notice, although there is no present notified plan. Although in places in the documents submitted the Applicant refers to and appears to seek a without notice interim order staying her dispersal, this is not reflected in the draft order that the Court is urged to make on an interim basis [pp30-32]. I have therefore assumed that this is a deliberate choice and that such an order is no longer sought.
- The draft order seeks directions and a with notice interim relief hearing next week which reasonable and justified in light of the tension between the assertion in the Respondent’s 18 February decision letter and the prior correspondence and documentation sent on behalf of the Applicant.