The High Court has quashed the decision to reject an Afghan judge’s application for relocation to the UK under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (ARAP) after it found the decision maker had ‘erred in his approach to the wording of the policy’.

ACG, as named in ACG, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Defence, was a judge in Afghanistan for more than 20 years until the Taliban took control of the country in 2021. Between 2011 and 2016 he sat in the anti-terrorism court in Kabul.

The judge tried a ‘significant number’ of criminal cases involving Taliban members and persons related to members, ACG claimed. He made an application to ARAP which was rejected; a second review decision agreed with the first.

ACG brought a judicial review challenging the second review decision under four grounds including that the secretary of state for defence had ‘erred in the approach taken to the scope and meaning of “working alongside” and/or “in partnership with” and/or “assisting a UK government department”’ and that the government failed lawfully to consider the judge’s evidence.

Read more

Considering the first ground on the approach taken to the scope and meaning of ’working alongside’, The Honourable Sir Peter Lane said: ‘There is in short no coherent evidence before this court to explain the defendant’s designation of certain judges as specific partner judges.’

He said the government ‘failed to show on the evidence before this court a rational case for relying upon the “partnership judge” concept to any material extent, let alone as the determining factor’. Quashing the second review decision, the judge said: ‘A new one will need to be made, no doubt expeditiously.’