The full judgment is here.
Section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 case, that naturalisation would normally be refused if “serious doubts” were cast on an applicant’s character. In the SSHD’s view, this included cases not merely where an applicant was directly involved in crimes against humanity, but, “where his actions have contributed towards … crimes against humanity, such as supplying help which the supplier knows is likely to contribute towards the committing of crimes against humanity“. The Claimant’s position was that the Defendant erred in failing to consider evidence directly linking the Claimant to particular crimes.
The JR was dismissed, the Court held: that to seek to require the Defendant to demonstrate a nexus between the Claimant and the commission of particular or specific crimes against humanity, is an overly stringent requirement and one which does not flow from the natural and ordinary meaning of paragraph 2.2 of the relevant Guidance or, indeed, paragraph 8.
The Defendant is entitled to consider the matter more broadly and to consider, having regard to the background material as well as the Claimant’s own account, whether he was likely to have been involved in the range of activities which – in the instant case, the Taliban is known to have committed. If he was, then it is entirely reasonable to draw the inference (the Defendant says “assume”, which is not ideally expressed, but it amounts to the same thing) that the Claimant’s activities were linked to some crimes against humanity, even if these could not be identified individually.