MP1, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] EWHC 410 (Admin)
MA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs & Anor
16 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 332 (Admin)
High Court
A former Afghan judge was unfairly denied help under a UK relocation program. The court ruled that the government didn't properly consider his important work helping rebuild Afghanistan's legal system and should reconsider his application.
Key Facts
- •Claimant: A distinguished jurist and legal scholar who worked extensively on Afghan legal reform after the 2001 US-led invasion.
- •Claimant applied for assistance under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) scheme.
- •Application denied by the Secretary of State for Defence twice, based on the Claimant not meeting conditions 1 and 2 of the ARAP scheme's 'special cases' category.
- •Claimant's work included drafting the Afghan constitution, devising a new penal code, heading legal reform at the Ministry of Justice, and advising the Anti-Corruption Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC).
- •The Claimant also provided training on the new penal code to Afghan judges and prosecutors as part of a UK-funded project.
Legal Principles
Judicial review of administrative decisions must be informed by the nature of the conditions applied by the decision-maker and adhere to established public law principles.
This case
Conditions based on established legal concepts (e.g., contracts) allow less latitude to the decision-maker, while conditions not based on such concepts require greater weight to be given to the decision-maker's view.
This case
The court's role in judicial review is to consider the legality of the decision, not to be the primary decision-maker.
This case
Application of Condition 1c (working alongside a UK government department) requires a holistic consideration of all circumstances, not a mechanistic approach focusing solely on funding or personal connections.
R(LND1) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1795 (Admin)
A decision is Wednesbury unreasonable if it is demonstrably wrong, considering the evidence.
This case
Outcomes
Judicial review claim succeeded.
The Secretary of State's decisions rested on an incorrect understanding of Condition 1c and a failure to consider relevant evidence concerning Condition 2b. The conclusions reached were Wednesbury unreasonable.
Secretary of State's decision quashed.
The court found that the Claimant met conditions 1 and 2 of the ARAP scheme.
Claimant's ARAP application remitted to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State must now consider whether conditions 3 or 4 are met.
Similar Cases
LND1 & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1795 (Admin)
LND1 & Ors, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2024] EWCA Civ 278
JZ v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors.
[2023] EWCA Civ 178
FMA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1579 (Admin)