Z3 -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department (anonymity order)

Anonymity Order




 30 October 2019


The Commission




The Secretary of State for the Home Department



On the Appellant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) Rules 2003, for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’) and for an order preventing any access by non-parties to the Commission’s file

On the Legal Representatives’ having been notified of the application on 13 September 2019 by email;

On considering the witness statement of Daniel Furner, the Explanatory Note and written submissions lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)

And on the Appellant undertaking to keep the Commission and the Secretary of State informed of any matter which may affect the continued need for this order;

It is ordered that:

  1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as Z3.
  2. Nothing may be published which, directly or indirectly, identifies him as an appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
  3. No non-party shall be given access to any documents on the Commission’s file.
  4. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
  5. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment is circulated in draft, that he intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application.


  1. Z3 appeals against a decision to deprive him of his nationality. He was born in Turkey but has lived for most of his life in the United Kingdom. He is married and has three children.
  2. He was tried twice on terrorism-related charges after his arrest in 2013. The trials were extensively reported in the United Kingdom and in Turkey. It was reported that he was alleged to have been planning a Mumbai-style attack in the United Kingdom, and that he had travelled to Syria to engage in terrorism-related activities. He was not anonymised in the trial, but parts of it were held in secret, including, it is said, most of his defence case.
  3. He has been imprisoned twice and was twice made the subject of a TPIM. He was arrested on 14 August 2018 and has been detained since then pending his removal from the United Kingdom.
  4. He has made two applications for judicial review in the Administrative Court: one concerns his detention; the other is a claim alleging misuse of legally privileged material. He is also involved in proceedings in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. He has been granted anonymity orders and orders restricting reporting in those proceedings, and was anonymised in the TPIM proceedings.
  5. He contends that if he is identified he will face risks in the United Kingdom because of the nature of the allegations against him. A planned move to a town in the East of England had to be abandoned because his address was deliberately leaked to a person associated with a far-right group. He was moved somewhere else to mitigate the risk to him. Even then he was found by the press and photographed in the street. The newspaper concerned agreed not to publish the photograph.
  6. Z3 contends that once he has been identified, that is irremediable. He points to rises in Islamophobic attacks in response to events involving or targeting Muslims, such as terrorist attacks. He does not argue that all Muslims are at risk of such attacks but that if he were identified, that would increase the risk of an attack on him.
  7. His wife and children do not share his last name but he fears that if he is identified, that might indirectly identify them. His relationship with them is an important facet of his appeal and will involve evidence about them. If he is identified, that evidence may become publicly linked to them, which, he argues would not be in the best interests of his children. It would also entail, for them, risks of harassment and ill treatment.
  8. Z3 wishes to co-operate with his removal to Turkey. If he were identified, that would increase the risk to him and to members of his family in Turkey.
  9. The Commission is not in a position to make findings of fact at this stage based the material advanced by Z3. Some or all of his contentions may be well founded.
  10. It is necessary to maintain the anonymity order in order to guard against the materialising of the risks on which Z3 relies. The encroachment into the principle open justice made by this order is therefore necessary, and in the circumstances, the considerations on which H3 relies outweigh the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights of the press and the public.
  11. It is also necessary because if Z3 were identified in these proceedings, that might well make ineffective the anonymity orders in the other proceedings in which Z3 is involved.