Update on ‘good character’ guidance judicial review

Wilson Solicitors are acting in a judicial review brought by a Syrian refugee of the Home Office’s policy, Good character: caseworker guidance, version 6.0 issued on 11 February 2025. The court reference for the judicial review is AC-2025-LON-001516. You can read our previous posts about the challenge here and here.

In pre-action correspondence the SSHD – whilst denying that the policy was unlawful – indicated her intention to amend the policy to address the position of people who would have a defence under section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, with the expectation that amended policy guidance would be issued by the end of May 2025.

Since then, the latest position communicated to us in correspondence from Home Office lawyers is that there is no timescale for when amended policy guidance will be issued, and no confirmation as to what amendments to the policy being considered.

On 27 June 2025 we filed amended judicial review grounds which argue that the guidance is unlawful on the basis (1) it misdirects decision-makers as to the law, specifically Articles 31 and 34 of the Refugee Convention; (2) it fails to direct decision makers to take account of the impact of refusal on Article 8 ECHR rights; (3) it is unlawfully discriminatory under Article 14 when read with Article 8; and (4) of domestic public law grounds, including frustrating statutory purposes and irrationality / Wednesbury unreasonableness.

On 18 July 2025 the SSHD filed summary grounds of defence denying the claim on all grounds. The defence emphasises the discretion in the policy allowing for individualised assessment of good character in the round. It takes an extreme position – despite previously indicating that the policy would be amended to address those who would have a section 31 defence – that Article 31 of the Refugee Convention does not apply in this context, on the basis that a refusal of naturalisation is not a 'penalty' in the meaning of this provision, and because naturalisation is governed by Article 34.

We have filed a reply and now await a decision on permission on the papers, which we expect to receive in the next 1-3 months. If permission is granted, we would expect there to be a full hearing and a decision on the judicial review by the High Court some time in 2026.

Separately, Wilson Solicitors are representing a number of individuals who have been refused British citizenship on the basis of their illegal entry and making a dangerous journey, and we have been made aware of other refusals. In two cases we have been made aware of, the individuals arrived as visitors and were subsequently deemed illegal entrants when they claimed asylum. It therefore seems that people are being refused even where their arrival did not involve a dangerous journey.

In the refusal cases we are acting in, we are seeking reconsideration on form NR in the first instance, as well as preparing to issue JR proceedings within 3 months of the refusal to protect our clients’ position.

We have capacity to assist with refusal cases on legal aid and privately, and we would be interested to hear about refusal cases others are acting in. We would also be interested to hear of any cases decided since the policy was amended on 10 February 2025 where naturalisation was granted notwithstanding illegal entry or arrival.

The Wilson team are Mala Savjani, Marcela Navarrete and Jed Pennington. Email enquiries can be sent to immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk and public@wilsonllp.co.uk.

Counsel instructed are David Chirico KC and Victoria Laughton at 1 Pump Court.