MP1, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence
[2024] EWHC 410 (Admin)
YMB & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
30 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1950 (Admin)
High Court
An Afghan man brought his family's case to court after the UK government refused to let them move to the UK. The court decided that the government's decision was fair and followed the rules, even though some secret information was involved. The family's application was denied.
Key Facts
- •YMB, an Afghan national evacuated to the UK under Operation Pilling, applied for resettlement of his family members (C2-C6) under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP).
- •The Secretary of State refused, citing insufficient evidence of threat or dependency.
- •Claimants challenged the initial decision, a review decision, and an exceptional review decision.
- •Closed material was involved, necessitating the appointment of Special Advocates.
- •The claimants argued the decisions were irrational and unfair due to reliance on closed material and lack of opportunity to address aspects of the exceptional review.
Legal Principles
Judicial review is to scrutinise the decision-making process, not to re-decide the merits.
Case law implied throughout the judgment
A decision is not irrational merely because it relies on material not before the decision-maker at the time of the initial decision.
Case law implied throughout the judgment
The court considers the lawfulness of decisions by referring to the policy guidance in force at the relevant time.
Case law implied throughout the judgment
The Justice and Security Act 2013 sanctions procedures for withholding evidence from claimants in national security interests.
Justice and Security Act 2013
Outcomes
Renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review refused.
The initial and first review decisions were rendered academic by the exceptional review. The exceptional review decision was lawful, the Panel's conclusions were reasonable, and there was no arguable error of law. The closed material procedure was lawful.
Similar Cases
FMA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1579 (Admin)
QA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
[2024] EWHC 3064 (Admin)
HR & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 786 (Admin)
CX1 & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor
[2024] EWHC 891 (Admin)