Naturalisation Good Character Judicial Review Update – Home Office Withdrawal
The Home Office has withdrawn the initial refusals of citizenship, and the reconsideration refusals, of claimants challenging the Good Character policy guidance, with specific reference to illegal entry.
In February 2025 the Home Office updated their policy guidance on Good Character (Version 6) to mean that people who entered the UK illegally, or who came to the UK illegally having undertaken a dangerous journey, would normally have their applications for naturalisation (British citizenship) refused.
With the policy being retroactive in nature, this caused great concern for many individuals who otherwise believed that they could qualify for naturalisation. A Judicial Review challenging the policy was filed. Initially only on a single person’s behalf, many further cases were filed. Four key cases (those of individuals anonymised as GUN, NEA, HCH, and CBW) were scheduled to go before the High Court on the 9th to the 11th of June 2026. However, the Home Office has now withdrawn in all four instances, with the first three having both their citizenship refusals and reconsideration refusals withdrawn, and the fourth, CBW, simply being withdrawn as a naturalisation application had not yet been made. The Home Office was ordered to pay costs for the first three claimants.
Whilst these claims were progressing, the Home Office published a new version of its Good Character guidance (Version 7). The Home Office claimed that there were no material differences between Version 6 and Version 7, and that the change was only made for technical clarifications. Version 7, however, included an amended section relating to considering all circumstances in an application together with the heading “Considering the balance of probabilities”. Crucially, the guidance states that:
It will normally be appropriate to disregard overstaying, illegal entry, or arrival without a required entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey, where it was outside the person’s control. This includes, but is not limited to, where there is reliable evidence that a person was trafficked into the UK…
The policy guidance also sets out that a person with a valid s31 defence under the IAA 1999 must not be automatically refused citizenship. It states:
Applicants with a valid section 31(1) defence, must not be refused citizenship on the sole basis of the illegal entry or overstaying that featured in that defence; all other character factors must still be considered in full.
For people affected by refusals under Version 6 of the policy guidance, there is good news. Whilst the Home Office stated that any reconsiderations of decisions made under Version 6 would be undertaken with reference to Version 6, they also said that there was no material difference between Version 6 and Version 7 with regards to how they understood their policy. This means that applicants should be able to rely on Version 7 as being reflective of the Home Office’s approach to Good Character. Depending on their circumstances, applicants may be able to request reconsiderations, bring judicial review proceedings, or, if applicable, make new applications.
It is worth noting that judicial review proceedings must normally be brought within three-months of the initial decision. In this situation, an order was made extending the judicial review deadline until three months after final orders in the lead claims. As the claims have now been withdrawn, Wilson Solicitors’, the solicitors for the claimants, have stated that they understand the three-month period began on the 16th of June 2026 and will run to the 16th of September 2026. The government has not yet confirmed whether they understand the period to be the same, but affected individuals should reach out to legal representatives immediately.
For reconsideration requests, the government has imposed a deadline of six months from the date the decision was made. Previously, no deadline existed, and so affected individuals considering requesting reconsideration should also reach out to legal representatives immediately.
Finally, it is also worth noting that a further case, that of Alibiari, was heard. The difference in that case from those above is that Alibiari’s claim did not include grounds based on the Refugee Convention or Article 8. That case was not withdrawn and was heard in full, with the judgment reserved.
By: Cameron Dyer