Messaoudi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

The court will not control the progress of a naturalisation application where the Secretary of State is exercising the statutory discretion lawfully and further investigations remain outstanding. The Secretary of State may investigate matters relevant to the statutory requirements before reaching a decision. The court may intervene only where there is evidence of an abuse of power or other legal unlawfulness. Personal urgency does not, without more, justify requiring an immediate decision, particularly where the information presently available would make an adverse decision inevitable.

The claimant sought judicial review concerning the processing of his application for naturalisation. Permission had been granted, and the application had previously been adjourned because no decision had yet been made. Further investigations, including a Metropolitan Police interview, had taken place, but the Secretary of State still needed to investigate matters under section 6 and Schedule 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

The central issue was whether the court could require or direct the Secretary of State to decide the application sooner because of the claimant’s personal circumstances.

1. The application was not capable of succeeding on the material before the court. The Secretary of State was exercising a statutory discretion under the British Nationality Act 1981, and the information before the court showed that the discretion was being exercised in accordance with the Act.
2. The Secretary of State was entitled to continue investigations under section 6 and Schedule 1 before reaching a fully considered decision. Until those investigations were complete, he was not in a position to determine the application properly.
3. The court had no general power to control the manner or timing in which the Secretary of State considered the application. Intervention would require evidence that the statutory powers were being abused. There was no suggestion or evidence of abuse in this case.
4. Forcing an immediate decision would have served no useful purpose. On the information then available, the Secretary of State could not be satisfied of the matters required under Schedule 1, so an immediate decision would have been adverse.
5. The Secretary of State could be expected to indicate when a decision would be made once the investigations were complete. The court therefore declined to require an immediate decision, and the application was refused.

Not stated in the judgment.