AC-2024-LON-000883 - [2025] EWHC 2019 (Admin)

FGF made an application for naturalisation as a British citizen on 27 January 2020. In a decision made on 16 February 2022, the Secretary of State refused the application on the grounds that FGF did not meet the requirement of good character under section 6(1) of, and paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to, the British Nationality Act 1981. At the same time, the Secretary of State certified under section 2D(1)(b) of the SIAC Act that the decision had been made wholly or partly in reliance on information which should not be made public. The effect of the certification was that any challenge to the decision had to be brought by way of a review in SIAC (section 2D(2) of the SIAC Act).

On 23 February 2022, FGF applied to SIAC for a review. Legal aid is available for review proceedings brought under section 2D but FGF did not qualify because his income and capital exceeded the relevant threshold. FGF came to an arrangement about funding with the solicitors who represented him. In a witness statement produced for SIAC, the solicitor with conduct of FGF’s case confirmed that solicitors and counsel had agreed to represent FGF under a heavily discounted conditional fee arrangement.

On 2 August 2022, the Secretary of State withdrew the decision in order to consider further evidence from FGF.

On 11 August 2022, SIAC served a notice, signed by Jay J (SIAC Chairman), recording that FGF’s application was to be treated as having been withdrawn pursuant to rule 11A. The Secretary of State remade the decision on 2 August 2023, with the application again being refused. FGF applied to SIAC for a review of the remade decision. In a judgment dated 30 September 2024, SIAC granted FGF’s application and quashed the Secretary of State’s decision.

Meanwhile, on 12 June 2023, FGF had applied to SIAC for his costs of the first review proceedings. The costs application was heard on 15 February 2024 before Jay J, Upper Tribunal Judge O’Callaghan and Mr Roger Golland. As we have mentioned, in a written judgment and order dated 23 February 2024, SIAC allowed FGF’s costs application.

We were addressed about the facts of H7’s and H15’s cases. We see no reason to set them out here as they were not before SIAC when it took the decision that forms the subject of the present challenge. On conventional public law principles, the facts of other cases (yet to be heard) were not relevant to SIAC’s judgment or order. We are disinclined to be drawn into factual matters that have nothing to do with the decision under challenge. The consideration of facts relating to H7 and H15 would be a distraction from the issues in the claim. It would be tantamount to treating H7 and H15 as having claims in their own right when they are interested parties and not claimants.