AC-2025-LON-000997 - [2025] EWHC 1970 (Admin)

The two grounds of challenge advanced by the claimants would, if successful, have very different consequences.

Ground 2 asserts that Article 8 ECHR imposes on the UK an obligation that goes beyond merely admitting the claimants to the UK if and when they present themselves at a border (provided that security checks are satisfactory) and extends to assisting them to leave Gaza. If that ground of challenge were to succeed, there would be no need to consider Ground 1, because the Foreign Secretary would be obliged by s. 6 of the HRA to provide the assistance requested. Ground 2 would also have substantial implications for other applications for consular assistance not only from individuals in Gaza, but also more generally.

Ground 1, by contrast, does not involve the contention that the claimants have any legal right to receive the assistance they have sought. Whilst success in this ground would of course be relevant to the way in which other similar requests must be considered, it would not determine whether the request for assistance ultimately succeeds in this case or any other. Ground 1 is more narrowly focussed on the particular decision taken in this case. It asserts that the decision was vitiated by flaws of a kind that are justiciable in judicial review proceedings. This ground turns on an analysis of the adequacy of the reasons given in this case.

I have therefore reversed the order in which I consider the grounds. I turn to Ground 2 first.