High Court grants urgent anonymity to vulnerable claimant after MoD failed to address critical support letters from senior officers
The High Court has cleared the way for a judicial review challenge against the Ministry of Defence to move forward, while ordering that the claimant’s identity remain confidential throughout the proceedings.
In a ruling dated 9 January 2026, Mr Justice Johnson, sitting in the Administrative Court of the King’s Bench Division, granted permission for the claim to proceed on all grounds. At the same time, he imposed an anonymity order to protect the claimant, who is identified in court documents only by the initials “MRG”.
The judge directed that the claimant’s name must not be published and that all future filings, applications and references in the case must use the cipher “MRG”. He said the anonymity order had been made on a precautionary basis, adding that withholding the claimant’s identity was likely to be necessary in order to safeguard his interests as the case progresses.
The proceedings are formally brought under the title The King on the application of MRG v Secretary of State for Defence. They relate to a challenge to decisions taken by the Ministry of Defence. However, the court order granting permission does not set out the full factual background or the precise nature of the decisions being contested.
When considering whether to allow the judicial review to proceed, the court assessed written material filed on the claimant’s behalf. This included letters from Major Azimi and Colonel Stanekzai, which the judge described as “arguably strongly” supportive of the application. Mr Justice Johnson also observed that this evidence “arguably has not been sufficiently addressed by the defendant” at this stage.
Despite granting permission, the court was careful to underline the limited nature of its decision. Mr Justice Johnson stressed that the court has not reached any findings on the merits of the claim and has not determined whether the Ministry of Defence acted unlawfully. Permission to proceed reflects only the court’s view that the challenge has a realistic prospect of success and that it should therefore be examined at a full hearing.
The order sets out a procedural timetable for the next stage of the case. The Secretary of State for Defence has been directed to file detailed grounds of defence within 35 days of service. Those grounds must respond to the issues raised by the claimant in support of the judicial review application.
The court has provisionally indicated that the case can be dealt with at a one-day substantive hearing, although the precise date has yet to be fixed. That hearing will provide the forum for both sides to present their arguments in full, supported by evidence and legal submissions.
In addition, the court has given clear instructions designed to preserve the claimant’s anonymity as the litigation continues. Any future applications or documents lodged in the case must be carefully redacted to ensure that no information capable of identifying the claimant enters the public domain. The obligation applies to both parties and to any further material placed before the court.
Judicial review proceedings play a central role in enabling courts to examine the lawfulness of decisions made by public bodies, including government departments. By granting permission in this case, the High Court has confirmed that the claimant’s challenge meets the threshold for further scrutiny, without expressing any concluded view on the outcome.
The next developments will depend on the Ministry of Defence’s response in its detailed grounds of defence and, ultimately, on the findings made by the court at the substantive hearing. Until then, the issues raised by the claim, and the evidence relied upon, remain to be tested through the judicial review process.