R (Syeda Fatinah Hossain) v Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 862 (Admin)
Summary
The High Court dismissed Syeda Fatinah Hossain’s judicial review challenge to the Secretary of State for Justice’s decision to maintain a licence exclusion zone covering Horsham.
The brief facts of the offences are that the claimant had groomed and had a sexual relationship with a 14-year student at the school she worked at in Horsham. She had subsequently made threats and false allegations against both the direct victim and his brother online: this offending had occurred in breach of her bail conditions.
The claimant had argued that the decision was unlawful on three grounds: irrationality, disproportionate interference with her Article 8 right to family life, and procedural unfairness. She said the wider exclusion zone prevented her from visiting her family home and undermined her reintegration into the community.
The court held that the earlier May 2025 decision had been superseded by a fresh decision in October 2025, so the real focus was the later decision.
On irrationality, the court found that the decision-maker had considered the relevant material, including the claimant’s circumstances, the victim’s concerns, policy guidance, and whether a less intrusive arrangement such as a travel corridor could work. The court accepted that the victim’s and family’s concerns about psychological harm and accidental encounters in Horsham justified revisiting the smaller Roffey-only zone adopted by the Parole Board.
On Article 8, the court accepted that the exclusion zone interfered with the claimant’s private and family life, but held that the interference was justified and proportionate. It found that the Secretary of State had properly balanced the claimant’s wish to access family support against the victim’s and family’s right to live in Horsham without fear of encountering her. The proximity of the two family homes was significant, and the restriction was time-limited because it lasted only until the end of the claimant’s licence in July 2026.
On procedural fairness, the court found no unfairness. Although the claimant was not expressly invited again to make submissions before the October 2025 decision, she had already had a fair opportunity to put forward her case through pre-action correspondence and the judicial review proceedings, and those representations were considered.
The court also refused a late application to add a further ground based on information suggesting the victim was studying away from home. It held that this did not undermine the decision because the victim still treated the family home as his permanent address and his family continued to live in Horsham.
Overall, the court concluded that there was no public law error in the October 2025 decision and dismissed the claim.
The brief facts of the offences are that the claimant had groomed and had a sexual relationship with a 14-year student at the school she worked at in Horsham. She had subsequently made threats and false allegations against both the direct victim and his brother online: this offending had occurred in breach of her bail conditions.
The claimant had argued that the decision was unlawful on three grounds: irrationality, disproportionate interference with her Article 8 right to family life, and procedural unfairness. She said the wider exclusion zone prevented her from visiting her family home and undermined her reintegration into the community.
The court held that the earlier May 2025 decision had been superseded by a fresh decision in October 2025, so the real focus was the later decision.
On irrationality, the court found that the decision-maker had considered the relevant material, including the claimant’s circumstances, the victim’s concerns, policy guidance, and whether a less intrusive arrangement such as a travel corridor could work. The court accepted that the victim’s and family’s concerns about psychological harm and accidental encounters in Horsham justified revisiting the smaller Roffey-only zone adopted by the Parole Board.
On Article 8, the court accepted that the exclusion zone interfered with the claimant’s private and family life, but held that the interference was justified and proportionate. It found that the Secretary of State had properly balanced the claimant’s wish to access family support against the victim’s and family’s right to live in Horsham without fear of encountering her. The proximity of the two family homes was significant, and the restriction was time-limited because it lasted only until the end of the claimant’s licence in July 2026.
On procedural fairness, the court found no unfairness. Although the claimant was not expressly invited again to make submissions before the October 2025 decision, she had already had a fair opportunity to put forward her case through pre-action correspondence and the judicial review proceedings, and those representations were considered.
The court also refused a late application to add a further ground based on information suggesting the victim was studying away from home. It held that this did not undermine the decision because the victim still treated the family home as his permanent address and his family continued to live in Horsham.
Overall, the court concluded that there was no public law error in the October 2025 decision and dismissed the claim.