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

The statutory good-character requirement for registration as a British citizen applies to adults and young persons in mandatory terms. It requires an individual, contextual and multifaceted assessment. Criminal convictions are relevant but are not determinative by themselves.

In assessing a young offender, the decision-maker must consider relevant matters such as age, maturity, mitigation, rehabilitation and the circumstances of the offending. Those matters form part of the same statutory enquiry; they do not create a different legal test or permit the statutory requirement to be outweighed by the benefits of citizenship. Judicial review is concerned with legality, misdirection and public-law reasonableness, not with whether the court would have attached greater weight to particular factors.

The claimant was born in the United Kingdom and had lived there all his life. He became entitled to apply for registration as a British citizen under section 1(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981. His application was refused because of convictions for theft and robbery, including two robberies committed while he was under 18.

He sought permission to challenge the refusal and internal review on grounds including misapplication of the good-character requirement, fettering of discretion, inadequate consideration of mitigating and psychiatric evidence, breach of article 8 ECHR, discrimination and failure to have regard to children’s welfare. The central issue was whether the Secretary of State had applied the wrong legal approach to a UK-born young person seeking registration by entitlement.

1. Permission refused. The claimant identified no arguable ground for judicial review with a realistic prospect of success.
2. Section 41A of the British Nationality Act 1981 provides in mandatory terms that registration of an adult or young person must not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant is of good character. The requirement applies notwithstanding the entitlement arising under section 1(4). It cannot be overridden or outweighed merely because citizenship would bring psychological, social or practical benefits.
3. Good character is not defined in the statute. It is a multifaceted assessment requiring consideration of all relevant material. A criminal conviction is relevant but is not determinative. Its significance depends on matters including the nature of the offence, the time elapsed, any pattern of offending, mitigating factors and the severity of sentence. The approach in Poloko Hiri v SSHD: [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin) was adopted in substance.
4. Young offenders require an appropriately contextual assessment. Maturity, neurological development, rehabilitation and positive interventions may be relevant, but they remain matters within the same good-character enquiry. The claimant’s psychiatric evidence, age and other circumstances had been considered. The court found no legal obligation to give those matters a particular weight or to consider them in a prescribed analytical form.
5. The challenge to the policy was not pursued as a contention that it required unlawful conduct. On that basis, the policy challenge was impermissible under R (on the application of A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37 and R (on the application of BF (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 38.
6. The Secretary of State was entitled to apply a high standard, subject to review for misdirection or a decision no reasonable decision-maker could have reached: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Al Fayed (No 2) [2001] Imm AR 134. The claimant’s case impermissibly sought to challenge the weight given to the evidence and to impose a lower standard of good character.

First-instance judicial review permission decision. No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.