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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2023-LON-002489

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

23 November 2023

Before:

Mr Tim Smith sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King on the application of
YYP

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

and

YYQ (1)
YYR (2)
YYS (3)
(Interested parties)

Order

On applications by the Claimant for permission to proceed with judicial review and interim relief
Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant
ORDER by Mr Tim Smith sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

  1. The Claimant is granted permission to rely upon its Reply
  2. Pursuant to CPR rule 39.2 the identity of the Claimant and the Interested Parties shall not be disclosed directly or indirectly, the Claimant’s name shall be anonymised as “YYP”, and the First, Second and Third Interested Parties’ names shall be anonymised as “YYQ”, “YYR” and “YYS” respectively
  3. Pursuant to CPR rule 5.4C a person who is not a party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment, or Order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or Order has been anonymised
  4. Within 14 days from the date of this Order the Defendant shall file and serve witness evidence from the Defendant’s officials and/or external contractors which shall address at least the following points:
    a) The details and date of the instructions given by the Defendant with a view to fulfilling the dispersal requirements in this case,
    b) How the search for suitable accommodation has been conducted,
    c) How many properties within London travel zones 1-6 with the facilities recommended by the Defendant’s medical advisor, as recorded in the letter dated 5th May 2023 (permission bundle page 85), have been identified since 5th May 2023, and
    d) If any properties referred to in paragraph (c) above have been identified but discounted, why they were discounted
  5. The Claimant’s application for interim relief shall be placed before a Judge for consideration on the papers as soon as possible after the filing and service of the evidence referred to in paragraph 4. above
  6. The parties shall have liberty to apply to vary or supplement the terms of this Order on not less than 3 days’ notice in writing to the other party
  7. Costs reserved

Reasons

1) The Claimant’s Reply addresses matters which post-date the Defendant’s Acknowledgement of Service and it is appropriate that the Court be able to consider those matters
2) The Claimant and Interested Parties are asylum seekers and it is appropriate that their identity be protected, having regard to the guidance in CPR39
3) There is – as the Claimant’s Reply notes (§7) – a general absence of evidence as to the steps that have actually been taken by or on behalf of the Defendant to source appropriate dispersal accommodation. On its face it is concerning that accommodation with apparently straightforward requirements, and within a wide catchment area, have still not been sourced despite the Defendant’s acknowledgement in correspondence of the need for urgency. The Court will be assisted by seeing evidence of the steps which have been taken and of the reasons why an apparently straightforward set of requirements have still not been met in judging whether interim relief should be ordered and, if so, on what terms
4) The terms of my Order deal with the request for anonymity and the Claimant’s application for interim relief as these are most in need of urgent consideration. The Judge dealing with the interim relief application may elect to give directions concerning the application for permission to proceed with judicial review