Successful challenge to transparency of Triples review of Afghan resettlement rejections

The High Court has ordered the Defence Secretary to publish caseworker guidance on the Triples review, which is reassessing eligibility decisions of certain applications made under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy after several issues were identified with the initial decision making process. The case is R (TPL1) v Secretary of State for Defence [2025] EWHC 1729 (Admin).

The claimant, TPL1, was relocated to the UK with his wife and children during Operation Pitting however he brought the claim on behalf of those left behind in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran, including his brother who has been tortured by the Taliban.

Background

The Triples were part of the Afghan special forces who fought against the Taliban and so they were one of the groups included in the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. For more background to the events leading up to this case, read this coverage by The Independent which has led on this campaign along with Lighthouse Reports.

There were around 5,000 members of the Triples who served with UK units and around 27,000 applications to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy were made by people purporting to fall within this group. The number of applications caused administrative difficulty for the Ministry of Defence. Processing of cases was paused from May to November 2022 (this appears to be separate to the pause uncovered by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration).

After concerns were raised about refusal of applications made by members of the Triples, including concerns about members of UK special forces operating a veto or de facto veto, a review was carried out that uncovered a number of issues with the decision making process relating to the Triples [at 31 to 36].

These included a lack of appreciation of the difference ARAP categories that the cases might fall under. Another issue was that caseworkers were not given access to relevant records of payments made by the UK to members of the Triples. There was also a failure to keep adequate records of decision making and a focus on speed rather than proper consideration of applications.

The Triples review was launched on 1 February 2024 and included a reassessment of all eligibility decisions where there were credible claims of links to the Triples. On 15 April 2024 caseworking guidance was published internally, however in May 2024 it was discovered that caseworkers had not been provided with access to this when they started making decisions and so the review was paused to that these could be provided. The guidance was not made public.

In October 2024 the Minister for Armed Forces made a statement confirming that around 2,000 cases were within the scope of the review and that there was an expected overturn rate of 25%. In May 2025 the Minister for Armed Forces confirmed that the overturn rate was around 30%.

The judicial review

This claim for judicial review was commenced on 29 October 2024. The Defence Secretary made several concessions following the issuing of the judicial review. This included agreeing to publish two documents relating to the scope of the Triples review, to make a public announcement that all those within that scope would be notified of the decision on their case, and providing that members of the Triples could get clarification from the Defence Secretary of whether or not they were in scope. Negative outcomes would be notified and reasons given, as well as the right to a review of the decision.

By the time of the hearing there was one ground remaining, and two issues to be determined by the court:

namely whether the Secretary of State: (1) unlawfully failed to publish the criteria for determining whether an application falls within the scope of the Triples Review; and (2) unlawfully failed to publish the criteria for determining what factors will be considered in individual review decisions, which was the caseworker guidance.

On the first issue, it was argued on behalf of the Defence Secretary that it did not matter whether people know they were in scope. This was because of concessions made during the judicial review to allow for people to get confirmation of whether they were in scope and also that reasons would be provided for negative decisions, along with the option of a review.

The court did not agree, stating that “In order to discharge the public law duty in this case it is necessary to publish a transparent and accurate statement about the scope of the (first) Triples review. This will enable those who might be in scope to know what reviews are being undertaken” [at 73]. The court also noted that the scope of phase two of the review had been published.

On the second issue, which concerned publication of the caseworker guidance, the Defence Secretary argued that the provision of redacted guidance within the judicial review proceedings was sufficient. The court rejected the suggestion that disclosure of the guidance within the proceedings under the duty of candour should necessarily mean that it should also be published as this could undermine proper disclosure in cases.

However, the court said that in the circumstances of this case “and where the rule of law calls for a transparent statement by the executive of the circumstances in which the broad terms of the ARAP policy will be exercised, then the Secretary of State, in order to comply with public law duties, will need to publish a summary of the material parts of the disclosed redacted guidance given to the caseworkers.”

Conclusion

The court was explicit that the published guidance must include guidance on the considerable detail needed to succeed in an application, as well other specific points which may help people in understanding whether or not they are eligible. If this had been done at the outset the Ministry of Defence may well have had fewer applications to deal with.