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

A public authority is generally entitled to apply the policy in force when the decision is made. A policy normally takes effect on its stated commencement date or, absent one, on publication. A legitimate expectation requires a representation that is clear, unambiguous and unqualified, read fairly and in context. A general news announcement referring readers to updated guidance will not ordinarily create an enforceable expectation that earlier guidance will continue to apply. The claimant must also establish that the representation was known to him and formed the basis of a personal expectation.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of his application for naturalisation as a British citizen. The Secretary of State concluded that he was not of good character because he had falsely claimed to be from Kosovo when applying for asylum and had maintained that account for over 12 years.

The claimant argued that the earlier good-character guidance applied because his naturalisation application pre-dated the December 2012 guidance. Alternatively, he argued that a Government website announcement created a legitimate expectation that the earlier guidance would apply to applications made before 13 December 2012.

1. Application of policy. The Secretary of State was entitled to apply the policy applicable when the decision was taken. A policy or guidance generally takes effect on the date specified, or, if no date is specified, on publication. The December 2012 guidance replaced the earlier guidance for outstanding naturalisation applications, except that its criminal-activity provisions contained expressly different treatment for applications made before and after the specified date.
2. Website announcement. The announcement of 9 January 2013 was a news update drawing attention to changes and directing readers to the full guidance. Read fairly, as a whole and in context, it did not clarify or limit the guidance’s application to applications made on or after 13 December 2012.
3. Legitimate expectation. The announcement did not amount to a clear, unambiguous and unqualified representation. Its opening sentence could imply that applicants before 13 December 2012 were unaffected, but the document did not expressly state that earlier guidance would govern those applications and directed readers to the updated guidance for full details. Further, the claimant produced no evidence that he had seen the announcement before the decision was communicated to his solicitors. He therefore failed, in any event, to establish a personal expectation.
4. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that the claimant had failed to establish good character under section 6(1) and Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981, having regard to his deception in the earlier immigration process. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The court did not decide whether the earlier guidance would have produced a different result.