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

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case No: AC-2025-LON-004198

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

26 November 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie

Between:

The King on the application of
ZIR

-v-

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Order

BEFORE the Honourable Mr Justice Ritchie sitting in the immediates list on 26.11.2025.

UPON receipt of the Claimant’s applications for judicial review, urgent interim relief and Anonymity all dated 25.11.2025.

AND UPON consideration of the grounds on which interim relief and anonymity are sought and the evidence provided.

AND UNDER the court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

AND UPON: consideration of the Claimant’s Article 8 right to respect for private and family life and the Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

AND UPON IT APPEARING that non-disclosure of the identity of the first Claimant is necessary in order to protect the interests of the Claimant.

AND PURSUANT to rule 39.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rules 5.4C and 5.4D of the Civil Procedure Rules.

NOW IT IS ORDERED THAT:

  1. The Defendant shall by 4pm on 28.11.2025 re-instate weekly payments to the Claimant of MSVCC financial support pending resolution of this claim for judicial review; specifically:
    £49.18 per week (Essential Living Rate) and
    £40 per week (Recovery Rate).
  2. The Defendant shall refund to the Claimant the MSVCC which has been unpaid since 8.10.2025 by 4pm on 28.11.2025.
  3. The Defendant shall ensure that the MSVCC support (including his current accommodation, financial support as detailed above and support worker contact) shall continue to be provided to the Claimant until such time as the permission to apply for judicial review has been determined or further order.
  4. The Defendant be at liberty to apply for withdrawal or variation of this Order on 7 working days written notice to the Claimant and by filing and serving a request to do so in writing.

Anonymity

Identity and address:

5.
5.1. That the identity of the Claimant shall not be disclosed.
5.2. That reporting restrictions apply as to the disclosing of any information that may lead to the subsequent identification of the Claimant. The publication of the name and address of the Claimant is prohibited

Documents filed in future:

6. That the name of Claimant shall be described in all statements of case and other documents to be filed or served in the proceedings in future and in any judgment or order in the proceedings and in any report of the proceedings by the press or otherwise as “ZIR”.

7. That the address of the Claimant shall 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.

Court files

8. That in so far as necessary, any statement of case or other document disclosing the Claimant’s name or address already filed in the proceedings shall be replaced by a document describing such name or address in anonymised form as above.

9. That the original of any such document disclosing the name or address of the Claimant placed on the Court file (digital or paper) shall be marked “confidential: not to be opened without the permission of a Master or High Court Judge”.

10. That a non-party may not inspect or obtain a copy of any document on or from the Court’s paper or digital files (other than this order duly anonymised as directed) without the permission of a Master or District Judge. Any application for such permission must be made on 14 days notice to the Claimant’s solicitor or deputy and the Court will effect service.

11. The Court’s paper and digital files are to be marked “subject to an Anonymity Order”.

Costs

12. The costs of this application be costs in the cause.

Reasons

  1. By a claim form dated 25.11.2025 the Claimant (C) seek judicial review of a decision made on 9.10.2025 by the Defendant (D), via the Single Competent Authority, to withdraw support and accommodation under the MSVCC (Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract). He also seeks anonymity and urgent interim relief, so ongoing MSVCC payments, by an application made on the same date. He has legal aid and lawyers.
    Financial restrictions
  2. C asserts he was made destitute on 7.10.2025. He asserts he can no longer afford to travel to see his family or go to his church or attend his medical appointments. He currently lives in a safe house. He made a Recovery Needs Assessment application on 15.10.2025. He seeks income (around £89.18 pw) pending that. PAP letters have been sent with no substantive response. He made an application under S.95 of the IAA 1999 (Immigration and Asylum Act) on 18.11.2025 for asylum seeker support which has not yet been determined. He asserts that the Defendant is in breach of his ECHR Art. 3 and 4 rights. C asserts he realised this was urgent on 21.11.2025.
    Asserted facts:
  3. C arrived in the United Kingdom on 28 May 2015 and claimed asylum. On 19 August 2015, D refused his asylum claim on the basis that his Eritrean nationality was disputed. C’s appeal was dismissed on 17 May 2016. The Claimant became appeal rights exhausted. C was made homeless from around 2016 or 2017 until 2020. C entered into the MSVCC system on 6 August 2020. C then disclosed his experiences of trafficking, was referred to the National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”). He was provided with housing by St John of God Hopsitaller Services as a victim of modern slavery. He continues to reside at this safe house. He started a fresh claim for asylum and refugee status on 1.3.2022. This was refused on 10.9.2024 and he appealed. That is outstanding. On 15.8.2025 C received a positive conclusive grounds decision on his assertions of trafficking and slavery abroad.
    Medical diagnoses
  4. On 13 August 2021, C was diagnosed by Professor Katona with complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder caused by the cumulative effects of the traumatic experiences he described in Ethiopia and a Major Depressive Disorder caused by the effects of the traumatic experiences he describes in Ethiopia and Libya, his separation from his mother, his ignorance as to her fate and his very prolonged and continuing immigration uncertainty. He has had counselling with Mr Heap from 11/2023 to 8/2024 when his son was born. The Professor’s updated report of 7.3.2025 evidenced some improvement but maintained the diagnoses. A further updated in August 2025 indicated deterioration and the need for urgent mental health referral. Counselling restarted in October 2025 with Sega Habtom. Physically C cannot fold his left arm properly as a result of injury caused to his elbow by the Ethiopian authorities. In addition, he suffers from recurrent dislocations of his right shoulder as a result of the beatings he sustained from traffickers in Libya. He needs shoulder surgery.
    Family life
  5. In around February 2023, C met and commenced a relationship with Marta Habos. They have a son together, Amen, born on 16 September 2024. Marta Habos lives with Amen in Canonbury, roughly 40 minutes’ walk from the safe house. I have not been informed why he is not living with his partner.
    The decision
  6. On 9/10/2025 D sought to move C off the MSVCC funding and onto other funding. D stated that she considers C has a sufficient alternative source of financial support to meet his essential living needs provided by his friend and highlighted in his bank statements. C challenges the withdrawal and applied for Recovery Needs Assessment and asserted that he had no alternative source of income and the money in his account was “his friend’s money”. Although he has a right to work card, he has not found work. He is allowed to work in construction but has not yet passed his health and safety certificate.
    The law on MSVCC support
  7. This is intended to be a short term bridge but C submits MSVCC is ‘intended to continue until those providing it have assured themselves that services to support the modern slavery victim in the next stage of his recovery process will be available for the victim’: R (Otao EXC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 935 (Admin), at paragraph 12, and para. 7.12 of the Modern Slavery Guidance.
    Grounds
  8. G1: C submits that D has failed to follow her own policy. The MS Guidance and RNA Guidance provide that support under the MSVCC continues until the recipient exits the contract following a Recovery Needs Assessment, so as to ensure that there is no break in the support provided to a recipient required to meet their recovery needs.
  9. G2: C asserts that the decision to stop funding is irrational.
  10. G3: C submits the decision to stop funding is a breach of Arts. 3 and 4 of the ECHR.
    Interim Relief
  11. Applying the test in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, C submits that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. I agree. The sums involved are small but the harm might be substantial if the payments are not made until the S.95 application is determined. C is a vulnerable person.
  12. I do consider that the open justice rule should be circumvented. C is vulnerable and impoverished and unable to protect himself.