Practice Note (Anonymisation In Asylum and Immigration Cases In the Court of Appeal)

The Court of Appeal adopted a general practice of anonymising asylum cases because publication of appellants’ names may create avoidable risks in their countries of origin. Applications and appeals raising asylum and immigration issues lodged on or after 2 October 2006 will ordinarily be recorded and listed using initials and the country of origin. Hearings remain in open court unless otherwise directed. Judgments in asylum appeals will presumptively preserve anonymity, while judgments in immigration appeals will presumptively identify the person seeking relief. In each case, the court may direct otherwise.

The Court of Appeal issued a practice note concerning the treatment of asylum and immigration cases in its records, listings, hearings and judgments. It considered the risk that publication of asylum-seekers’ names could expose them to avoidable danger in their countries of origin, and the practical difficulty of distinguishing asylum cases from other immigration matters when cases enter the Civil Appeals Office.

The central issue was how the Court of Appeal should balance administrative practicality, open justice and the protection of asylum-seekers’ identities.

1. General practice. The Court of Appeal decided to follow the universal practice observed by other European jurisdictions and anonymise its judgments in cases involving asylum-seekers. The reason was that publishing their names might create avoidable risks in the countries from which they had come.
2. Scope and records. The practice applies to all applications and appeals raising asylum and immigration issues lodged on or after 2 October 2006, unless a judge specifically directs otherwise. The Civil Appeals Office will anonymise such cases internally by assigning two initials and the country of origin, such as AB (Turkey). Listings and references will use that name together with the Civil Appeals Office reference number.
3. Open hearings. Hearings will continue to take place in open court unless the court otherwise directs. Anonymisation of records or judgments does not itself make the hearing private.
4. Judgments. Where judgment is given in an asylum appeal, or in a permission-to-appeal application where the judgment is released from the usual restriction on citation, there is a presumption that the asylum-seeker’s anonymity will be preserved unless the court directs otherwise. By contrast, judgments in immigration appeals presumptively identify the person seeking relief unless the court directs anonymity.
5. Repeated names. If the Court of Appeal issues more than one judgment in a single year under the same anonymised name, later judgments will be numbered.

not stated in the judgment.