MTA, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors

A government resettlement scheme may be introduced incrementally where its wider operation remains work in progress. A stated aspiration does not necessarily create a legally enforceable policy or require every person within the broader class to be considered immediately.

Where a scheme distributes a finite resource among a much wider class, the decision-maker is entitled to substantial latitude in setting priorities, provided the chosen criteria have a rational and legitimate basis. A mismatch between the scheme’s general objective and its initial, limited implementation is not by itself unlawful.

The claimant sought judicial review of the refusal of his expression of interest under Pathway 3 of the Afghan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme. He had worked for TOR International in support of NATO fuel operations in Afghanistan, but did not fall within the three categories prioritised during the pathway’s first year: British Council contractors, GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni.

He argued that his application should have been assessed after the first year and, alternatively, that restricting the pathway to the three categories was unlawful because it was inconsistent with the scheme’s wider stated aims.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The relevant date was when the expression of interest was submitted, not when the claimant was notified of the decision. His application was made during the first year of Pathway 3, when the published guidance limited assistance to the three specified categories and to 1,500 places.
2. The early ministerial announcement describing the scheme’s ambition was aspirational. The September 2021 guidance expressly stated that eligibility requirements had not yet been devised, and the scheme remained work in progress. Those materials did not create a policy giving rise to legal consequences.
3. The apparent tension between the pathway’s wider objective and its first-year restriction did not establish illegality. The three categories could rationally be regarded as persons at risk because of their connection with the United Kingdom’s work in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State was entitled to regard Chevening alumni as closely allied to the United Kingdom and their mistreatment as potentially damaging to the United Kingdom’s international reputation.
4. The court’s role was to assess legality, not to determine the content of government policy. In a discretionary scheme distributing a finite resource among a much wider class, the Secretary of State was entitled to substantial latitude in deciding how to prioritise assistance. The criteria adopted had a rational and legitimate basis.
5. The evidence showed that the wider operation of Pathway 3 remained practically undeveloped at the beginning of 2022. It was therefore permissible to open the pathway incrementally for the benefit of the three categories, subject to the 1,500-person limit. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
6. On disclosure, the court applied the Court of Appeal’s approach in IAB v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 66: systematic redaction of civil servants’ names was not permitted without cause, and parties could not contract out of the obligations of open justice and candour.