Court upholds Secretary of State's decision on Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme eligibility restrictions

Citation: [2024] EWHC 553 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of MTA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2024] EWHC 553 (Admin), Mr Justice Swift deliberated on the legality of a decision by the Secretary of State concerning the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS). The challenge centered on two core issues: Whether the decision to refuse the Claimant’s application based on the applicant not being part of specific groups was lawful after the first year of the third referral pathway, and whether it was lawful to limit the third referral pathway to particular groups.

Key Facts

The ACRS was introduced to assist Afghan nationals, particularly women, girls, and minorities at risk, to resettle in the UK. The scheme comprises three pathways, with pathway three initially limited to 1,500 persons from three specified groups: British Council and GardaWorld contractors, and Chevening alumni. The Claimant, who did not fall into these groups but worked for a company associated with NATO, challenged the denial of his application on the grounds that the decision was unlawful beyond the first year and that it was unlawful to limit eligibility to the three specified groups from inception.

The court applied several significant legal principles in its judgment:

  1. Policy discretion and implementation: The court held that the scope of judicial review does not extend to dictating policy content, but rather to scrutinizing the legality of a policy decision made by officials or ministers.

  2. Resettlement schemes and prioritization: It was found to be within the Secretary of State’s discretion to prioritize certain groups for resettlement schemes when faced with practical constraints and finite resources.

  3. Legitimate expectations: The judgment referenced the principle of legitimate expectations, implying that public statements by officials could create assumptions of assistance but did not establish legally enforceable promises.

  4. Obligation of candour and open justice: The court criticized the handling of disclosure by the Secretaries of State, underscoring the importance of candour and the principle of open justice, as emphasized in IAB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 66.

Outcomes

The court dismissed the Claimant’s arguments on both grounds:

  1. Ground 1 (Timing beyond the first year of pathway three): The court held that the decision was consistent with the policy at the time of the Claimant’s application, and thus the timing of the notification did not affect the decision’s legality.

  2. Ground 2 (Exclusivity of the third pathway to specific groups): The court ruled it was not unlawful for the Secretary of State to limit access to the ACRS in its first year of operation to the three specified categories nor to prioritize these groups.

The application for judicial review consequently failed, and the claim was dismissed.

Conclusion

In MTA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors, the legality of the Secretary of State’s decision concerning the ACRS was upheld. Mr Justice Swift established the broad discretion afforded to the Secretary of State in policy implementation, especially when constrained by practicalities and finite resources. Furthermore, the case reasserted the importance of remaining true to the principles of candour and open justice, providing a stark reminder to legal advisors in the public sector concerning the handling of case disclosures.