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

The claimant, a United Kingdom-born adult who became eligible for registration as a British citizen under section 1(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State's internal review decision refusing registration on the basis that he was not of "good character" under section 41A of the 1981 Act. The court considered whether the Secretary of State had applied an incorrect legal test (confusing entitlement-based registration under s 1(4) with discretionary naturalisation), whether the nationality guidance had been applied mechanistically, and whether material evidence (including psychiatric evidence and the claimant's youth offending context) had been ignored.

The judge held that the statutory requirement to be satisfied of good character under s 41A applies to adults and young persons alike and does not morph into a different legal test simply because the applicant claims an entitlement under s 1(4). The court found that the decision-maker had taken the claimant's age, sentencing context, psychiatric material and other mitigation into account and that there was no public law error, unlawful fettering or failure to have regard to s 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, Article 8 ECHR or the Equality Act 2010 in a manner which would render the decision unlawful. Permission to proceed with judicial review was refused.

Background and parties: The claimant was born in the United Kingdom on 16 January 2003 and lived in the UK throughout his life. He applied (as a minor) for registration as a British citizen under section 1(4) BNA 1981 but was refused on good-character grounds under section 41A. He had multiple youth convictions (robbery in 2019 and 2021, and theft in 2018) and had produced expert and other evidence in support of his application. The defendant was the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Procedural posture: The claimant made an original application and then an internal review. The review decision (dated 22 March 2022) repeated the refusal. The claimant issued judicial review proceedings on 14 November 2023; permission on paper was refused by a Deputy High Court Judge on 20 December 2023 and the claimant sought reconsideration. The present determination was of a renewal application for permission to proceed.

Relief sought: Permission to bring judicial review challenging the Secretary of State's review decision refusing registration on good-character grounds and related public law and human-rights/ equality grounds.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Secretary of State applied the correct legal test and applied the nationality guidance in a way that unlawfully treated a UK-born child applicant as if he were an adult naturalisation applicant.
• Whether the guidance was applied mechanistically or in a fettering way.
• Whether material evidence (psychiatric report, mitigation related to youth offending, and the claimant's upbringing) was given adequate weight.
• Whether there was a failure to have regard to the best interests of the child under s 55 of the 2009 Act, or incompatibility with Article 8 ECHR or the Equality Act 2010.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions: The judge analysed the statutory scheme (section 1(4) entitlement, section 41A good-character requirement and Schedule 1 naturalisation preconditions) and considered relevant authorities on assessment of good character and youth offending. The court concluded that Parliament had imposed a mandatory good-character satisfaction requirement which applies to adults and young persons; that the statutory test is multi-faceted and fact-specific rather than producing separate legal tests by category. The sentencing context and age-related mitigation are relevant factors to be taken into account (and had been considered) but do not convert the statutory test. The court found no misdirection, mechanistic fettering or failure to take relevant material into account; Article 8, s 55 and equality arguments were founded on alleged omissions which in reality amounted to disagreement with the outcome rather than demonstrable public law error. Because no arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success was identified, permission to proceed with judicial review was refused.

The court refused permission to proceed with judicial review and dismissed the claimant’s renewal application. The judge concluded that the Secretary of State had applied the lawful good-character requirement in section 41A of the British Nationality Act 1981, had taken into account age, sentencing context and expert material, and had not misdirected herself or applied the guidance in a mechanistic or unlawfully fettering manner.

The judgment records the pre-litigation and permission-stage history: the claimant sought an internal review (review decision dated 22 March 2022), issued the claim on 14 November 2023, and permission to proceed on paper was refused by Dan Squires KC (Deputy High Court Judge) on 20 December 2023; the claimant sought reconsideration and lodged further material before the renewal application adjudicated by Mr Justice Sweeting.