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

In dealing with this case, there were two specific points which gave rise to particular concern. I will explain what they were. But I make clear that I decided, at the Teams hearing, not to permit a diversion of time or energy to investigate them any further. I felt it was important to use the available Court time to focus on the substance of the case. These points could, however, prove fatal in a future case unless the position has been thought through. The first point which I record caused me concern was the timing of the filing of the application. Mr Lee emphasised that the Claimant’s current solicitors had been instructed only on Friday 10 October 2025 and the documents had been received by them only on Monday 13 October 2025. I do not underestimate the challenging nature of the task which conscientious lawyers face in dealing properly with a case such as this one. Mr Lee told me, and I accept, that there was within the bundle a witness statement by a solicitor which had been prepared specifically to explain the chronology and the steps that had been necessary. As I have already said, I did not interrogate or investigate the point at the Teams hearing. Nor have I done so since. What I record here is no criticism of anyone in relation to the present case. The point I am making is a different, and general, one.

My concern is about the Court being faced with an application which is lodged at the end of a court day, and which relates to seeking to restrain a flight which is due to take place the following morning. The Court is able to accommodate urgent cases, as the present case illustrates. There are arrangements for rapid response. But the point is about whether legal representatives may be able to assist the Court with earlier communication, to avoid or reduce the very real challenges and difficulties which arise. It seems obvious that there should be the earliest possible engagement with the Home Office, with GLD, and with the Administrative Court. The Court would then, for its part, need to begin considering taking any appropriate steps. This case well illustrates that the Court may well want an oral hearing. And the Court will certainly want to ensure that the defendant has had a chance to respond. I have already described the open justice implications.