GA v Secretary of State for the Home Department

In judicial review proceedings before SIAC, relief may be refused on the inevitable-outcome basis only where the outcome would have been inevitable despite the procedural error. This remains the stringent pre-2015 approach, and such a conclusion should be reached only exceptionally. An appellate court may interfere with SIAC’s discretion where it erred in principle or reached a conclusion that was not reasonably open to it. Where that threshold is met, the decision should be quashed and remitted for reconsideration on all relevant evidence.

The Secretary of State refused the appellant’s application for naturalisation. The true concern was alleged past association with Islamist extremists, but that basis was disclosed only after the appellant applied to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and a Rule 38 hearing took place. SIAC found procedural unfairness but dismissed the review because, for reasons given in its CLOSED judgment, the outcome was inevitable. The appellant appealed, challenging SIAC’s approach to relief and its conclusion that the same decision would necessarily have been reached.

1. Appeal allowed. SIAC’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. The fresh decision was to be made on the basis of all the evidence, including evidence submitted by the appellant, as at the date of that decision.
2. The statutory scheme gives the Secretary of State the discretion to grant naturalisation where the requirements in the British Nationality Act 1981 are met. The good character requirement in Schedule 1 cannot be waived. Under section 2D of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, SIAC applies judicial-review principles and may grant relief available in judicial-review proceedings.
3. It was common ground that the applicable relief test remained the pre-2015 judicial-review test. The question was whether the outcome would have been inevitable even if the procedural unfairness had not occurred. The Court accepted the approach described in LA, MB, RA, SAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department (SN/63, 64, 65 and 67/2015), including the need for exceptional caution before refusing relief on that basis.
4. The Court of Appeal could not interfere with SIAC’s discretion merely because it might have reached a different view. Intervention was justified where SIAC had erred in principle or reached a conclusion that was not reasonably open to it. For reasons contained in the CLOSED judgment, both errors occurred here. The OPEN judgment therefore did not set out the detailed basis for concluding that SIAC’s refusal of relief could not stand.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2022] EWCA Civ 304, the appeal was allowed. SIAC’s decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.
2. Special Immigration Appeals Commission: On 3 November 2020, the Commission dismissed the review. It found procedural unfairness but concluded in its CLOSED judgment that the outcome would inevitably have been the same.