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

An applicant for naturalisation bears the burden of demonstrating good character under the British Nationality Act 1981. A refusal based on prolonged unlawful working will not be irrational where the applicant provides no mitigation or extenuating circumstances. The Secretary of State must consider circumstances beyond the bare fact of unlawful working, but need not accept an application where the evidential burden remains unmet. A grant of indefinite leave to remain under a different discretionary policy does not create an estoppel or require a consistent outcome in a later naturalisation application. A material factual error does not vitiate a decision where the court is satisfied that the same decision would inevitably have been reached without it.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal of her application for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981. She had overstayed after entering the United Kingdom as a visitor and had worked unlawfully for approximately nine years before being granted indefinite leave to remain under a discretionary policy.

She argued that the decision-maker had failed to investigate her good character, had given excessive weight to her unlawful employment, and had adopted an inconsistent position by granting indefinite leave to remain while refusing naturalisation. The decision letter also incorrectly stated that she had been imprisoned.

1. Application refused. The claimant had worked in breach of immigration laws for approximately nine years. Under the Secretary of State’s nationality instructions, refusal was appropriate absent exceptional circumstances. No mitigation or extenuating circumstances had been advanced.
2. The Secretary of State was required in principle to look beyond the bare fact of unlawful working and consider any extenuating circumstances. That obligation did not assist the claimant because she had offered no explanation for the unlawful employment. In those circumstances, it was not Wednesbury unreasonable to conclude that she had not demonstrated good character. The burden of establishing good character lay on the applicant.
3. The grant of indefinite leave to remain did not make the later refusal inconsistent or give rise to estoppel. The indefinite leave decision had been made under a different discretionary policy, in which the interests of children received particular weight. Even if that grant had been overly generous, it could not justify naturalisation under section 6.
4. The statement that the claimant had been imprisoned was erroneous and required formal correction and an apology. It did not vitiate the decision. The refusal rested on two separate bases, and it was inevitable that the Secretary of State would have reached the same conclusion without the imprisonment error.
5. The claimant remained able to make a further application. The court indicated that evidence of good character, community standing, reliability and an explanation for the unlawful employment would assist consideration of any future application. Costs were awarded to the Secretary of State in the sum of £1,750.

First-instance judicial review decision. The application was refused by the High Court (Administrative Court).