Wilson Solicitors’ lead claims challenging the Home Office’s good character nationality policy resolved

Following a High Court hearing on 9 June 2026, the four lead claims brought by Wilson Solicitors challenging version 6 of the Home Office’s “good character” policy for British citizenship applications have been resolved.

In three cases (GUN, NEA and HCH), the Home Office withdrew the original refusals of British citizenship, and the court ordered it to pay our clients’ costs.

Our fourth client, CBW, challenged version 6 but has not yet applied for British citizenship. As any future application would be considered under the new version of the policy published on 30 April 2026 (version 7), his claim had become academic and was withdrawn with no order as to costs.

Background

In February 2025, the Home Office amended its good character policy to state that people who had travelled to the UK illegally and/or who had made a dangerous journey to the UK would normally have their British citizenship applications refused for an indefinite future period. The policy did not explain when that presumption might be displaced by mitigating factors and/or evidence of good character. Nor did it refer to, or provide guidance on, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention or the potential relevance of Article 8 ECHR to British citizenship applications.

CBW issued a judicial review claim in May 2025. In pre-action correspondence, the Home Office said it would publish amended guidance addressing Article 31. When that guidance was not published within the indicated timeframe, CBW amended his claim to challenge version 6 in full. He argued that version 6 was unlawful because it failed to address Articles 31 and 34 of the Refugee Convention and Article 8 ECHR; was discriminatory under Article 14 ECHR; and was irrational or otherwise unlawful on domestic public law grounds.

Our firm later lodged further judicial review claims challenging both version 6 and individual refusal decisions in respect of applications that had been refused and subsequently, reconsideration decisions maintaining the original refusal. Following disclosure, the Claimants also applied for permission to amend their claims to challenge unpublished guidance documents that were circulated to decision makers.

In January 2026, we agreed case management directions with the Home Office. These provided for permission to be granted and for the lawfulness of version 6 to be determined through lead claims, with other claims brought by our clients stayed behind them. The order also allowed people with refusal decisions to notify the Home Office’s lawyers in order to extend the judicial review time limit to three months after final orders in the lead claims.

Version 7

On 30 April 2026, the Home Office published version 7 of its good character policy. Version 7 describes the amendments as “technical clarifications”. In the lead claims, the Home Office’s unequivocal position was that there was no material difference in how versions 6 and 7 were understood or would be applied in practice by Home Office officials.

Version 7 includes an amended section on considering all circumstances in the round, titled “Considering the balance of probabilities”; a section stating that it will normally be appropriate to disregard illegal entry or arrival where this was outside the person’s control, such as for children or people under the control of traffickers; and a section addressing Article 31, confirming that those with a valid defence must not be refused citizenship on the sole basis of the illegal entry.

Decision in the lead claims

After becoming aware of version 7, we made a settlement offer that would have resolved the four lead claims, the stayed claims and cases involving clients who had relied on the permission order to extend the judicial review time limit until three months after final orders in the lead claims. The proposal would also have allowed anyone refused under version 6 to ask, free of charge, for their decision to be reconsidered under version 7. The Home Office declined to engage with the offer.

The four lead claims were fully prepared for a three-day hearing before the Divisional Court (Lewis LJ and Farbey J) from 9 to 11 June 2026. Shortly before the hearing, however, the Home Office confirmed that both the initial refusals and the reconsidered refusals had been withdrawn. Its skeleton argument also stated that CBW’s claim was academic because any British citizenship application he made would be considered under version 7.

Because many of our clients and others were awaiting the outcome of the lead claims, two clients with stayed claims agreed to be added as lead claims. Their claims were not ready for hearing, however, and the court was not prepared to add them solely so that their generic grounds challenging the policy—that is, the same grounds as the existing lead claims—could be considered. Their applications were therefore refused. The Home Secretary’s position was that the court should hear CBW’s grounds challenging version 6, either through the existing lead claims despite their having become academic, or by substituting our two stayed clients.

The four lead claims were withdrawn. The court ordered that the Home Office pay our costs in three cases, and the court made no order as to costs in CBW.

A linked claim brought by Duncan Lewis Solicitors (Alibiari), listed alongside our four lead claims, proceeded. Judgment was reserved and will be handed down later. Although there was some overlap between the grounds in CBW and Alibiari, Alibiari did not include CBW’s Refugee Convention or Article 8 grounds.

What does this mean for other people affected by version 6?

Anyone who used the 7 January 2026 order to extend the judicial review time limit until three months after final orders in the lead claims should urgently seek legal advice. Our understanding of the orders made by the court is that the three-month period began on 16 June 2026, meaning proceedings must be lodged by no later than 16 September 2026. We have asked the GLD to confirm its understanding of the orders and will update on any response we receive.

People with initial refusal decisions under version 6 should also urgently seek legal advice. At court on 9 June 2026, the Home Office’s position was that any reconsideration would be undertaken by reference to version 6. However, version 7 states that its amendments are “technical clarifications”, and the Home Office’s unequivocal position in the lead claims was that there is no material difference between versions 6 and 7 in how the policies are understood or applied by Home Office officials. Advisers should therefore be able to rely on version 7 as accurately reflecting how the Home Office will assess good character in British citizenship applications.

People refused after reconsideration should also seek urgent legal advice on whether to pursue judicial review to have their decisions withdrawn or reconsidered. Alternatively, they may consider making a fresh naturalisation application.

Our immigration team can advise on individual applications (immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk) and both our immigration and public law teams can act in judicial review claims (immigration@wilsonllp.co.uk and public@wilsonllp.co.uk).

The team working on the four lead claims is Mala Savjani, Marcela Navarrete, Catherine Hegarty and Jed Pennington. Counsel instructed are David Chirico KC, Victoria Laughton and Catherine Robinson.

‍