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

On 2 April 2025, the claimants filed the present claim, challenging Ms Taylor’s decision of 12 March 2025. The claim was expedited. Mould J adjourned the decision on permission to a rolled-up hearing, later fixed for 5 June 2025.

On 21 May 2025, the claimants wrote to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to reconsider his refusal in light of the offer from COGAT to the FCDO set out in Ms Taylor’s second witness statement. The claimants also referred to other developments including the public statements of various senior Israeli officials (including cabinet members) indicating strong support for the voluntary departure of Palestinians who remain in Gaza and have permission to go to third countries.

On 30 May 2025, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he would reconsider his earlier decision. I approved an Order vacating the hearing and setting a timetable for a reconsideration within seven days and a new rolled-up hearing on 9 July 2025 in the event that the Defendant maintained his refusal.

On 6 June 2025, the FCDO made a new decision to refuse consular assistance. This decision was taken by Ms Jennifer Anderson, who was Ms Taylor’s predecessor in her role at the FCDO between January 2020 to June 2024. Ms Anderson was provided with a new “rationale” document, which includes information about the claimants’ family and the UT’s decision, which is materially similar to that included in the earlier “rationale” document. It offered the same two options as had been presented to Ms Taylor.

The document provided further information on the current operational context and attached the most recent representations from the claimants’ solicitors. The information presented was interwoven with the internal assessments and advice of FCDO officials. In summary, it provided as follows:

In the “Decision” section of the “rationale” document, two further points were noted for Ms Anderson’s consideration. First, granting assistance to the claimants would widen the scope of the EEC (which itself represented a “significant departure” from normal consular policies) and thus endanger the FCDO’s ability to secure permissions that are fundamental to arranging further departures from Gaza. Second, it was likely that if assistance were granted, similar representations would be made by others in analogous positions to the claimants. In this regard, it was noted that requests for consular support had been received by the FCDO from some 50 people since early May 2025.

Ms Anderson’s decision was set out in an email dated 6 June 2025. Like Ms Taylor, she concluded that the claimants did not fall within the EEC and then turned to consider whether there were identified exceptional circumstances. In her witness statement, she explains that, when considering whether the claimants’ circumstances were exceptional, she considered their position relative to: (i) the wider population of Gaza; and (ii) those in Gaza who might request consular assistance from the FCDO. In relation to each comparison, the answer was “No”.

Given that it is the subject of challenge under Ground 1, it is necessary to set out Ms Anderson’s reasoning in full:

“There are two main issues: a) does the BEL family meet the published eligibility criteria; and, if not, b) are any exceptional circumstances which would justify departing from published policy and granting the request by the BEL family.

1.

Does the family meet the published eligibility criteria?

Given the advanced nature of the request, I assume it is agreed by the parties that the family do not meet the published eligibility criteria. But for the avoidance of doubt, I have reviewed them against the criteria. They are not British nationals. Nor do any of the applicants have a spouse/partner or child under 17 living in the UK. Finally, although the Home Office has issued ‘minded to issue entry clearance letters’ for all the family members, those letters state that the issuance of an entry clearance vignette is subject to them attending a Visa Application Centre to enrol biometric information, and to satisfactory security and background checks. In other words, whilst a positive step towards securing the relevant UK visas, none of the applicants currently hold a UK visa or is guaranteed one. In short, they do not fall within any of the three limbs of the published policy (British Nationality; a spouse/partner or child in the UK; a valid UK visa for more than 6 months). They can only be considered for consular assistance if there are identified exceptional circumstances which would justify departure from the policy.

2.

Are there identified exceptional circumstances?

I have considered all the issues raised in the Bindman’s letter of 21 May and the other material that you have provided to me. As has been consistently noted, any discussion of what constitutes exceptional circumstances is difficult given the extreme nature of the situation in Gaza. That situation is particularly acute for children and other individuals and groups with additional vulnerabilities.

However, the question here is whether the situation of the family is such that theirs is exceptional relative to any others seeking to leave Gaza. In particular, I need to consider if it is exceptional relative to those seeking UK consular support outside of our established policy.

In terms of the family’s overall situation, their ‘profoundly dangerous’ situation is sadly similar to that of the vast majority of Gaza residents... Unfortunately, the family’s inadequate shelter, vulnerability to further attacks and lack of access basic supplies and medical treatment is not exceptional in Gaza.

I have considered whether the number, age and vulnerability of their children is exceptional. The continued presence of the family, and particularly their four children, in Gaza is clearly not in their best interests. However, it is not evident how that is distinct from the many children affected by the conflict, including those seeking UK consular support outside our published policy.

Although the Fatah connection was identified by the Upper Tribunal of the Asylum and Immigration Chamber in its decision of 13 January 2025, it is not clear why that is exceptional in the context of consular support…

Finally, I have reviewed of the additional factors cited in the Bindmans’ letter of 21 May concerning possible changes in Israeli departure policy. Israeli policy – or the viability of departure requests – is not a relevant consideration to exceptionality. The FCDO policy is first and foremost focussed on the safe departure of British nationals and their direct dependants, and secondarily for those who fall within the specified exceptions. Nonetheless, I would note that no departures are guaranteed and that the process of securing exit remains highly uncertain, contingent on the agreement of several countries and institutions and often requires significant diplomatic intervention at multiple points. Current departure routes require permissions from Israel and Jordan at a minimum, previously the agreement of Israel and Egypt was required.

Conclusion

Despite the family’s acute vulnerability, the deteriorating situation in Gaza and the updated information provided in Bindmans’ letter of 21 May, I have concluded that their circumstances are not exceptional relative to others in Gaza. In particular, they are not exceptional relative to others seeking UK consular support outside our consular policy. On that basis, it is my decision that request should be declined.”