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

In deciding an application for naturalisation, the Secretary of State exercises a statutory discretion under the British Nationality Act 1981. Admitted assistance to a proscribed organisation may cast serious doubt on an applicant’s good character, including where the assistance is said to have resulted from harassment or pressure. A further interview is not required where the applicant has already provided relevant evidence and had an adequate opportunity to make submissions. The decision must remain rational and have regard to the welfare of children under the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, but indefinite leave to remain may mean that refusal of naturalisation is not detrimental to that welfare. Judicial review is the appropriate remedy, and Article 6 is not engaged by the determination of citizenship where no civil right is involved.

The claimant, a Sri Lankan national with indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom, challenged the Secretary of State’s refusal of his naturalisation application. The refusal was based on his admitted support for and assistance to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. The renewed application for permission alleged procedural unfairness, discrimination, irrationality, breach of the statutory duty concerning children’s welfare, and breach of Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR. The central issue was whether the admitted assistance was sufficient to cast serious doubt on the claimant’s good character.

1. Permission refused. The Secretary of State had considered the claimant’s asylum interview and the other submissions made on his behalf. In those circumstances, fairness did not require a further interview.
2. Under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, read with Schedule 1, the Secretary of State had to be satisfied that the claimant was of good character before exercising the discretion to grant naturalisation. The term good character was not defined in the Act. The Nationality Instructions stated that applications should be refused where the applicant’s activities cast serious doubt on character.
3. The claimant had admitted assisting the LTTE in several ways, including providing information, supporting its activities and cause, collecting blood donors, stewarding meetings, delivering food, driving and providing training. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that this admitted support, even in the circumstances described as harassment, cast serious doubt on good character. The decision was neither discriminatory nor irrational.
4. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 required the Secretary of State to discharge the relevant functions having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. The claimant retained indefinite leave to remain and could continue living with his children in the United Kingdom. Nothing in the refusal was detrimental to the promotion or safeguarding of their welfare.
5. The Secretary of State’s decision was amenable to judicial review for irrationality or other unlawfulness. Article 6 of the ECHR was not engaged because the naturalisation decision did not determine a civil right. The claim therefore failed.

The judgment records that a previous challenge was withdrawn by consent on 16 May 2014 after the Secretary of State agreed to reconsider the application. The reconsideration produced the decision challenged in these proceedings. Permission was refused on the papers by Blake J on 20 November 2014. The renewed application was refused by the Administrative Court.