Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Citizenship is a matter of status. Absent specific statutory provision, the same standard of proof applies when citizenship is established for different purposes, including a passport application. The applicable standard is the ordinary civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities. A decision-maker must evaluate DNA evidence rationally. Although testing between siblings cannot itself establish paternity, it may materially increase the probability that they share the same father where the father of one sibling has already been accepted. A previous official acceptance is not determinative of a later application, but it has evidential weight. Decision letters must give sufficient reasons, although they need not answer every submission point by point.

The claimant, born in Pakistan, sought judicial review of the refusal by passport authorities to issue her a British passport. She claimed British citizenship by descent under British Nationality Act 1981, on the basis that Moghul Khan, an accepted British citizen otherwise than by descent, was her father. Her younger sister had previously been accepted as his daughter and issued a British passport. The claimant relied on documentary evidence and DNA testing indicating that she and her sister were full siblings.

The authorities applied a requirement that paternity be conclusively proved, and treated the DNA evidence as incapable of assisting because the putative father was deceased. The issues were whether the wrong standard of proof had been applied, whether the DNA evidence had been irrationally disregarded, and whether adequate reasons had been given.

1. Claim allowed. The review decision of 23 May 2013 was quashed because the passport authorities applied the wrong standard of proof.
2. The claimant bore the burden of proving the relevant status under s 3(8) of the Immigration Act 1971. The court accepted the approach in Kessori Khatun and ors v Entry Clearance Officer—Dacca (4272), namely that the ordinary civil standard applies to proof of citizenship. There was no statutory basis for HM Passport Office to apply a higher standard than that applied by other government departments. Citizenship is a single legal status and cannot depend on the purpose for which it is being established.
3. The decision-maker had also erred in treating the DNA evidence as having no evidential value. Testing could not itself prove that Moghul Khan was the claimant’s father. It could, however, materially increase the probability that the claimant and her sister had the same father. The claimant still had to prove every link in the chain on the balance of probabilities.
4. The sister’s earlier acceptance as Moghul Khan’s daughter was not determinative, since applications must be assessed on their own merits. It nevertheless had evidential weight, particularly if the evidence previously relied upon could be produced and had earlier been assessed against a requirement of conclusive proof.
5. The inadequate-reasons challenge was rejected. The final letter could be read with the earlier correspondence. Decision letters must explain what was decided and why, but need not refute every argument individually. The matter was to return to the decision-maker for reconsideration under the correct legal approach.