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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtQueen's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

CO Ref no: CO/4341/2021

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

8 August 2022


Vikram Sachdeva QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge


The Queen on the application of


Secretary of State for the Home Department

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 (including the Reply) and the Acknowledgement of Service filed by the Defendant

ORDER by Vikram Sachdeva QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

1. Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4), the identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly and this matter shall be known as R (VJ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.
2. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
3. The costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service are to be paid by the Claimant to the Defendant, summarily assessed in the sum of £780.
4. The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection under section 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The amount of costs that the Claimant shall pay shall be determined on an application by the Defendant under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013. Any objection by the Claimant to the amount of costs claimed shall be dealt with on that occasion.


1. There is a justified reason for anonymity at this stage.
2. None of the grounds of review are arguable, on the facts.
3. Ground 1: the Defendant does not have a record of receiving the BID submissions sent on 22 September 2021, and has dealt with them subsequently, on 18 January 2022. Further, the Defendant has assessed the Claimant as posing a high risk of reoffending, and a high level of harm should he reoffend, and she was entitled to make that assessment based on his criminal record before coming to the United Kingdom. Given that background, and despite the medical evidence against electronic monitoring, the Defendant’s decision to impose electronic monitoring is not arguably unlawful for the reasons relied upon in ground 1.
4. Ground 2: the proposed use of GPS monitoring for the purposes explained by the Defendant is not arguably outwith the purposes of Schedule 10 Immigration Act 2016.
5. Ground 3: there is no arguable breach of Article 8 on the facts.
6. Ground 4: there is no arguable claim for false imprisonment, nor of the Claimant’s Article 5 rights, on the facts.
7. Ground 5: a victim of trafficking who is British is not likely to be subject to deportation or removal in general, and it is therefore not obvious why they would be an appropriate comparator. On that basis there is no arguable discrimination claim.
8. Ground 6: this claim is unarguable, there being no disclosed policy (even if hitherto unpublished) which unlawfully requires electronic monitoring of this Claimant.