Al-Tamimi, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

On judicial review of a naturalisation decision, the court examines whether the decision was lawfully made, rather than determining the truth of the underlying intelligence or substituting its own assessment. A decision that the Secretary of State is not satisfied that an applicant is of good character is distinct from a finding that the applicant is of bad character. Where the information available to the Secretary of State entitled him to remain unsatisfied as to good character, and no error of law in the decision-making process is shown, the claim cannot succeed. Later evidence challenging the underlying facts does not itself establish that the original decision was unlawful.

The claimant, an Iraqi national with asylum status and indefinite leave to remain, applied for naturalisation. On 16 May 2006 the Secretary of State refused the application because he was not satisfied that the claimant was of good character, referring to his past relationship with the Directorate of General Intelligence. The claimant disputed the information relied upon and sought judicial review.

The application was initially refused by Sullivan J on 26 October 2006. This was a renewed application for permission. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State had made an error of law in reaching the decision on the information available at the time.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant could not directly challenge the truth of the matters placed before the Secretary of State in these proceedings. He had to show an error in the making of the decision rather than merely dispute the decision’s factual basis.
2. The Secretary of State was entitled, on the information provided to him, to conclude that he was not satisfied that the claimant was of good character. The court regarded it as unarguable that, if the reported facts were true, the Secretary of State could not properly remain unsatisfied as to that requirement.
3. The decision did not amount to a finding that the claimant was of bad character. The distinction between a positive finding of bad character and failure to be satisfied of good character was material.
4. The Secretary of State did not allege that the claimant posed a threat to national security. The claimant’s ability to produce later material challenging the information could not determine whether the decision made on 16 May 2006 was lawfully made on the information then available.
5. The dismissal did not prevent the claimant from pursuing a future naturalisation application.

The judgment records that Sullivan J refused the claimant’s application for permission on 26 October 2006. The present decision concerned a renewed application for permission and dismissed the claim.