Diamond v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In a claim concerning British citizenship by descent, the court itself determines disputed nationality facts and applies the civil burden of proof. The claimant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the statutory conditions for citizenship are met. Documentary evidence is assessed in the round. The claimant must show that a document is reliable; the Secretary of State need not prove that it is forged. Official appearance or confirmation from an issuing authority does not establish the truth of its contents. Earlier documents may carry greater weight than documents created to support a later passport application. The court may also consider hearsay reliability and procedural deficiencies affecting witness statements.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal to renew his British passport and a declaration that he was a British citizen by descent. His paternity was accepted. The dispute was whether he had been born after his father became a British citizen on 12 April 1989.

HM Passport Office had revoked his passport and refused renewal after concluding that earlier correspondence from his mother recorded his birth date as 12 May 1982, whereas later Bangladeshi documents recorded 4 October 1990. Permission was granted only on the nationality-as-precedent-fact ground. The central question was whether the claimant had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that he was born after 12 April 1989.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had not proved that he was born after 12 April 1989.
2. Whether a person is a British citizen is a matter of precedent fact. The court determines disputed facts and law for itself, without deference to the Secretary of State on factual issues: R (Harrison) v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 432.
3. Under section 3(8) of the Immigration Act 1971, the burden lay on the claimant. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities.
4. The court applied Tanveer Ahmed v SSHD [2002] UKIAT 00439, as approved in MA (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 175. Documents had to be assessed in the round. The defendant did not have to prove forgery.
5. The 2003 letters attributed to the claimant’s mother were given greater weight because they pre-dated the passport application and were consistent with contemporaneous material. The later birth certificate and supporting documents followed a self-declared birth date and lacked contemporaneous support.
6. The court applied section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. Procedural defects in the witness statements, including failures concerning language and translation, materially reduced their weight.
7. The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof. His application for judicial review was dismissed.

The judgment was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Administrative Court). The claimant challenged HM Passport Office’s refusal dated 18 July 2019 to renew his passport. Permission was granted only on the precedent-fact nationality ground; permission on irrationality and flawed reasoning was refused.