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

A statutory fee requirement will not be ultra vires merely because it temporarily prevents a destitute child from exercising an entitlement to registration as a British citizen. The relevant question is whether the fee scheme defeats the statutory right, rather than postponing its exercise. Parliament may confer a wide discretion to regulate applications and provide only limited exemptions or waivers, particularly in a scheme concerned with economic and social policy. Nationality is an important element of private identity and may fall within the ambit of article 8, but the Convention does not guarantee acquisition of a particular nationality. A denial must involve sufficient interference, or be arbitrary or discriminatory, to engage the protection of article 8. Impecuniosity alone was not an “other status” for article 14 purposes.

The claimant was born in the United Kingdom and had lived there for his first ten years. He satisfied the substantive requirements for registration under section 1(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, but he and his parents were destitute and receiving local authority assistance under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. His application was returned because it was not accompanied by the prescribed £673 fee.

While the claim was pending, the claimant and his parents obtained leave to remain and the claimant no longer sought individual fee relief. The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to determine the public-law issues: whether the absence of a destitution exemption was ultra vires, and whether it was incompatible with articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR.

1. Hypothetical issue. The claim was no longer capable of affecting the claimant directly, but the issue was suitable for determination in the public interest. It concerned a discrete class, was essentially statutory rather than fact-sensitive, was likely to recur, and had already incurred substantial preparation costs.
2. Ultra vires. The power under sections 51 and 52 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 permitted the Secretary of State to impose fees and make limited exceptions or waiver provisions. The power had to be exercised for its statutory purpose. However, the absence of an exemption for destitute children did not defeat the substantive entitlement under section 1(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Registration remained available when the fee could later be paid, and the Secretary of State accepted that a waiver would be required if payment would breach Convention rights. The scheme was therefore within the statutory power.
3. Article 8. Nationality is a vital element of personal and social identity and may fall within the private-life limb of article 8. The Convention does not confer a right to acquire a particular nationality. Here, the temporary inability to obtain citizenship caused uncertainty and loss of status, but did not sufficiently interfere with private or family life. Alternatively, any interference was marginal and justified by the legitimate aims of limiting costs for other applicants and maintaining a robust scheme with minimal exceptions.
4. Article 14. The denial of nationality fell within the ambit of article 8, but impecuniosity was not established as an “other status” under article 14. Article 14 therefore added nothing to the article 8 claim.
5. The application was refused.