AC-2025-LON-003558 - [2025] EWHC 2688 (Admin)

What I will do next is to set out what I said at the end of the hearing on 15 October 2025. I authorised the use by the Court of voice-recognition software during the ruling, so that I could provide it as an approved version. Here is what I said:

At 10:26pm on 15 October 2025 I am announcing, at the end of a 90 minute Teams hearing, that I am dismissing the claim for interim relief in this case and I am refusing permission for judicial review. Mr Lee has been able, with skill and care, to take me through all of the key documents of relevance to the central substantive point that arises in this judicial review claim. I have explained to the parties that the approach I will adopt is to announce my decision now with very brief reasons and then reconvene subsequently in open court at which point I may decide to give fuller reasons.

The central points, as I see it, all necessarily focus on the legality of the decision of 6 October 2025 in the light of the documents that had preceded it. By reference both to the material error of fact and the legal relevancy grounds, and the central conclusion in the decision about “no amended account having been put forward”, it is my conclusion – with the assistance of Ms Anderson’s submissions on behalf of the SSHD – that the challenge to this impugned decision does not have a realistic prospect of success at a substantive hearing. I have reached the same conclusion in relation to the second key aspect of the same decision, namely as to marks or stamps on the Claimant’s body and a rule 35 report. Having regard to the context and circumstances, and to the nature of the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction on judicial review, I have concluded that there is no viable claim in this case.

It it for those reasons that I will refuse interim relief and, having had the advantage of submissions from both parties, will also refuse permission for judicial review. In those circumstances, I have not needed to address the difficult question of the balance of convenience and justice, in circumstances where there are some similarities with the CTK case, but also one important difference. This is not, on the face of it, an abrogation case, where a policy was promising something which has clearly not been delivered, as was CTK. This is a more nuanced case where the challenge is to the lawfulness of the decision which, from the Home Office’s perspective, was the end of the relevant ‘reasonable grounds’ decision-making process, because it was the refusal of a request for reconsideration of the earlier adverse decision.

I will pause to see whether the parties wish me to say more at this stage, or whether they wish me to reconvene later tonight to give fuller reasons, or whether they are content to wait to hear what I have to say in open court on Friday morning. But my decision in this case is that the application for urgent interim relief is refused and permission for judicial review is also refused. [Exchanges with Counsel.] The advocates have each confirmed that they are content that I have given sufficient reasoning for now to explain what my ruling is and what its basis is. Neither of them has invited me to reconvene later tonight. Each of them is content that the next stage in this case will be a hearing on Friday morning where I will have the opportunity to say more, to the extent that I consider it appropriate. I do not envisage that I will need to hear any representations at that hearing and therefore no attendance is required. If the parties take the view that there will be a need to hear submissions, I will need to know that during tomorrow by email. But I will leave this case there for now, it being clear what order I have made. The order will be drawn up in the usual way, but now not until tomorrow, and sealed. But the parties are aware that the Court’s decision has been made and communicated. I am taking it, in those circumstances, that I can turn to the other urgent case with which I now need to deal. [End of Teams hearing.]

That, then, is what I said at the end of the Teams hearing (22:30) on 15 October 2025. What I am now going to do is to provide some fuller reasons for the conclusions which I reached at the end of that hearing.