YMB & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2024] EWHC 1950 (Admin)
QA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
29 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 3064 (Admin)
High Court
A man repeatedly applied to bring his family to the UK from Afghanistan, but the government kept refusing. A judge ruled the government's decision unfair because a key person deciding the case had previously given biased evidence against him, and the government hadn't been open about who was making decisions. The government has to decide again, this time fairly.
Key Facts
- •QA, who previously worked with the UK government in Afghanistan, sought resettlement for 15 extended family members under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
- •His application was repeatedly rejected, leading to multiple judicial review applications.
- •The Secretary of State's handling of the application was marked by inconsistencies, redactions of panel member names, and the involvement of Christine Ferguson, a panel member who also provided a witness statement seemingly unaware of her involvement.
- •The fifth decision to refuse resettlement is challenged on grounds of procedural unfairness (apparent bias and predetermination) and failure to take relevant matters into account.
Legal Principles
A decision is unlawful if the decision-making process was unfair due to bias or an appearance of bias.
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
The test for apparent bias is whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude there was a real possibility the tribunal was biased.
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67
A decision is also unlawful if the decision-maker has a closed mind and the outcome is predetermined.
R (T) v West Berkshire Council [2016] EWHC 1876 (Admin)
The test for predetermination is analogous to the Porter test for bias.
Miller v Health Service Commission for England [2018] EWCA Civ 144
Redaction of civil servant names from disclosed documents is generally impermissible.
R (IAB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 66
A decision-maker's prior involvement in a case does not automatically disqualify them from reconsidering it, but a reasonable perception of unfairness or damage to public confidence may.
HCA International Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority [2015] EWCA Civ 492
Outcomes
The fifth decision to refuse resettlement is quashed.
The court found procedural unfairness due to the appearance of predetermination, particularly concerning Ms Ferguson's involvement as both a panel member and witness, combined with secrecy surrounding panel member identities and misleading statements by the Secretary of State.
Similar Cases
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
[2024] EWHC 332 (Admin)
FMA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1579 (Admin)
Ilirjan Hima v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 680