The King (on the application of CX1, CX2, CX4, CX6 and CX7) v Secretary of State for Defence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Johnson |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 891 (Admin) |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: AC-2023-LON-001736 and AC-2023-LON-002091 |
and
[2024] EWHC 891 (Admin)
Lord Justice Dingemans
Vice-President of the King's Bench Division
Mr Justice Johnson
and
Mr Justice Chamberlain
Case Nos: AC-2023-LON-001736 and AC-2023-LON-002091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Martin Goudie KC, Dominic Lewis and Alex Jamieson (instructed by the Special Advocates Support Office) as Special Advocates
Sir James Eadie KC, David Blundell KC, Richard O'Brien KC, Nicholas Chapman, John Bethell, Natasha Jackson and Luke Tattersall (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Defendants
Hearing date: 26 March 2024
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down by release to The National Archives on 23 April 2024 at 10.30am.
This is the judgment of the court.
These claims for judicial review each raise issues about the application of the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). ARAP governs the circumstances in which His Majesty's Government will grant leave to relocate to the United Kingdom. In each of these cases, the claimants challenged decisions that they were not eligible for relocation to the United Kingdom under ARAP. OPEN judgments have been handed down in each of these cases: [2024] EWHC 94 (Admin) (the CX cases) and [2024] EWHC 410 (Admin) (the MP cases).
For the reasons given in the judgment in the CX cases, the court quashed decisions that CX1 and CX6 did not qualify for relocation to the United Kingdom under ARAP and remitted their applications to the defendants to be redetermined. CX2's claim was withdrawn. The claims of CX4 and CX7 were dismissed.
For the reasons given in the judgment in the MP cases, the court quashed the decisions that the claimants did not qualify for relocation to the United Kingdom under ARAP. There is an outstanding application for permission to appeal against that decision.
In each case, the defendants sought a declaration that a closed material application could be made under section 6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Part 82 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The declaration was sought to...
To continue reading
Request your trial