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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2025-LON-00047

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

10 April 2025

Before:

David Pittaway KC

Between:

The King on the application of
YYY

-v-

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 Summary Grounds of Defence and the Claimant’s Reply

ORDER BY DAVID PITTAWAY KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

  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 YYY.
    (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.
  2. Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
  3. Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £732.
  4. Further provision as to costs:
    (a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:
    (i) paragraph 2 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;
    (ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.
    (b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 2 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.
    (c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):
    (i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.
    (ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:
  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
  • any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

    (d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):
    (i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:
  • the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
  • permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.
    (ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.
    (iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:
  • the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
  • if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
  • the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing.

5. Renewal directions: Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (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) I consider that this is an appropriate case in which to make an anonymity order where the Claimant is an asylum seeker. There is evidence that naming the Claimant will increase the risk he would face if returned to Malaysia. The claim relies on personal information about the Claimant’s sexuality in which he has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

(2) I do not consider that the claim for judicial review is arguable with a realistic prospect of success. There are four Grounds contained in the SFG.

a. whether the SSHD was entitled to conclude that the Claimant’s submissions did not amount to a fresh claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. In my view the claim is unarguable, on the facts of the case, that the two limb test was not applied, for the reasons set out in the SGD.

b. whether the removal of the Claimant whilst he is in the course of pursuing a remedy for sexual assault was unlawful. In fact, on 11 February 2025 the SSHD cancelled the removal directions that had been set for the Claimant with the consequence that the claim is academic.

c. whether the negative Reasonable Grounds Decision was unlawful. I cannot see that the SSHD’s decision that there were no reasonable grounds to indicate that the Claimant was a victim of modern slavery was arguably unlawful and was contrary to the guidance.

d. whether his detention was unlawful. I do not consider that the short period the Claimant was detained for the purpose of removing him, where removal directions were set and the cancelled, was arguably unlawful.