Good character requirement not met in case with a history of torture

A claimant has been refused permission for judicial review to challenge the refusal of his naturalisation application on good character grounds. The decision followed an oral permission hearing and the case is R (BSD) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3333 (Admin).

BSD arrived in the UK and claimed asylum in 1999. The claim was refused on the grounds that he was excluded from refugee status under article 1(F) of the Refugee Convention because he had been involved in torture in Afghanistan when he worked for the former intelligence service and internal security agency between 1980 and 1992.

His appeal on the exclusion point was dismissed but the appeal allowed under articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR. The First-tier Tribunal made a clear finding that exclusion on article 1(F) grounds was appropriate and BSD’s appeal was unsuccessful.

In July 2015 BSD was granted indefinite leave to remain, following an application to extend his leave in 2009 (not a typo). In February 2020 he applied for naturalisation and this was refused on 14 February 2022.

An application for reconsideration was submitted on 3 March 2022. This included an expert psychologist’s report addressing the suggestibility and compliance of the claimant to support arguments that were made about him having been manipulated and indoctrinated as a child.

On 15 August 2024, following a pre action letter challenging the delay, the reconsideration was refused. BSD then proceeded to judicial review. The three grounds were as follows:

(i) An allegation of failure to consider the Article 33 defence under the Rome Statute in relation to the conduct that led to BSD’s exclusion under Article 1 F of the Refugee Convention or alternatively, Article 31 should have been considered in the context of indoctrination amounting to “mental defect” (ii) An allegation of failure to consider the applicability of Article 20 of the ICCPR to BSD’s conduct that led to his exclusion under Article 1 F of the Refugee Convention; and (iii) An allegation of failure to attribute “due weight” to the evidence of BSD’s remorse and rehabilitation and conduct in work and raising three exemplary children who have become professionals in their work.

The court summarised the position as:

It might be thought that there is a point of redemption after 32 years and BSD may consider that he has received that redemption through being able to live a full life in the United Kingdom. He acknowledged in his witness statement that he had been given a second chance. However, in determining statutory good character, the SSHD considered all material relevant to the application, attesting to BSD’s impeccable character since entering the UK, together with an expert report from a Clinical psychologist. Whilst abiding by the law is a minimum requirement, the SSHD concluded that there were not any strong countervailing factors in BSD’s conduct that outweighed the severity of his actions for KhAD in Afghanistan. In reaching this decision the SSHD had regard to the detail of the torture and willingness of BSD to carry out such acts. They also considered BSD’s 12-year work for KhAD and his movement up the ranks.

The court held that the Home Secretary was entitled to conclude that the good character requirement was not met and that it was difficult to see how a different conclusion could have been reached when applying public interest considerations. The application for permission was refused.