August 17, 2026

INP -v- Secretary of State for Defence (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001237

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

The King
on the application of
INP
(Claimant)

-v-

Secretary of State for Defence
(Defendant)

and

(1) INH
(2) INR
(3) IRL
(4) ISP
(5) IVR
(Interested Parties)

Order

Notification of the Judge’s Decision (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant, the Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence and accompanying documents.

ORDER BY THE HON. MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN

Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as ‘INP’.

(iii) The Interested Parties are to be referred to orally and in writing as INH, INR, IRL, ISP, IVR respectively.

(iv) So far as paragraph (1) of this Order relates to the Claimant, it relates equally to the Interested Parties.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Extension of time are granted in respect of: (a) Filing a Reply to the AoS (retrospective)
Permission: Permission to apply for judicial review is refused.
Costs: The Claimant must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing the Acknowledgement of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence, summarily assessed in the sum of £1500.00
Further provision as to costs:

(a) The Claimant has the benefit of cost protection for the purposes of s. 26 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Accordingly:

(i) paragraph 2 specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay;

(ii) the amount of costs that the Claimant is liable to pay is to be determined on an application by the other party under regulation 16 of the Civil Legal Aid (Costs) Regulations 2013.

(b) If the Claimant wishes to object to the order in paragraph 2 in principle, or the maximum amount there specified, the following directions apply.

(c) Where the Claimant does not make a valid request for reconsideration of the decision to refuse permission to apply for judicial review (see notes below):

(i) Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the Claimant may file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages) showing why the order in paragraph 2 should not be made. The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(ii) If the Claimant does not file and serve a notice of objection within that period, paragraph 2 is a final order, which specifies the maximum amount that the Claimant may be held liable to pay.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (i) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which the other party’s submissions in response are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make on the papers;
any costs ordered must be paid within 14 days of the date of the Court’s order (in accordance with CPR 44.7(1)(a)), unless the Court specifies another date.

(d) Where the Claimant makes a valid request for reconsideration (see notes below):

(i) Paragraph 2 does not become final as respects the maximum amount of the claimant’s liability to a party unless, insofar as it relates to that party:

the Claimant withdraws the application for permission; or
permission to apply for judicial review is refused on all grounds after a hearing.

(ii) If the Claimant wishes to contend that the order in paragraph 2 should not be made even if permission is refused on all grounds, the Claimant must within 14 days after the date of this Order file and serve a notice of objection (maximum 3 pages). The notice should include any objections to the principle that costs should be paid and/or as to the amount specified.

(iii) If the Claimant files and serves a notice of objection in accordance with (ii) above:

the other party may, within 14 days after the date on which the notice is served, file and serve submissions in response (maximum 3 pages);
if the other party files and serves on the Claimant submissions in response, the Claimant may, within 7 days after the date on which those submissions are served, file and serve reply submissions (maximum 3 pages);
the Court will determine what costs order to make at or after the permission hearing.

REASONS

The Claim, and Anonymity

(1) The Claimant is an Afghan national born in 1984. The Claimant states that between 2009 and 2016 he was employed in Afghanistan in a capacity which he sets out in his Statement of Facts and Grounds, evidence and section 9.1 of the Claim Form, but which I have chosen not to repeat in this Order so that I do not risk compromise of his identity. Likewise, in my reasons in respect of permission to apply for judicial review, I have not referred specifically to the Claimant’s roles, for the same reasons. Nevertheless, I have had full regard to the evidence.

(2) The Interested Parties are his wife and four children.

(3) The Claimant challenges the decision to refuse his application under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”). The application was made on 19th August 2021. It was a well-prepared and detailed application. The application was refused on 12th September 2023. The Claimant says that no reasons were given. A review was requested. Further information was provided as a result of the Claimant’s requests.

(4) The Claimant’s current solicitors challenged the lack of a decision, which resulted in agreement to expedite the review and so the claim was withdrawn.

(5) On 1st December 2025, the Defendant decided to maintain his refusal. This is the decision which is the subject of this claim.

(6) There is evidence that naming the Claimant and/or members of his family will increase the risk they would face as a result of the matters which are the subject of the Claim. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice.

Extension of time

(7) I have granted an extension of time for the Reply. There was, in any event, a consent order in that regard.

Permission

(8) I do not detect much in the way of disagreement between the parties as to the proper description of the policy scheme which is at issue, nor the key dicta from the decided cases: see SFG [26-31]; SGD [10-12].

(9) Ground 1 of the claim is about the ARAP policy. It is submitted that the Defendant misunderstood and misapplied the ARAP criteria when refusing the Claimant’s application on the grounds that he did not meet Condition 2 of Category 4. It will be recalled that Condition 2 is additional to Condition 1, and is expressed to be:

“… had made a substantive and positive contribution towards the achievement of the UK government’s military or national security objectives (including counter terrorism, counter narcotics, and anti- corruption objectives) with respect to Afghanistan”

(10) The Claimant’s case is that the Defendant took an erroneous approach as to what comprises a positive contribution to achieving the UK Government’s national security objectives. The Claimant submits that the sole, and erroneous, reason for rejecting the application on the Condition 2 basis was that his role was one which concerned human and economic development.

(11) The Defendant does not accept this characterisation of the decision. The Defendant draws attention to the detailed review which appears in the Claim Bundle [139 onwards and particularly from 149 in respect of Category 4]. I agree with the Defendant that the Claimant’s case received substantial and detailed consideration which is required to be considered as a whole. The decision considers all of the evidence and the submissions in detail and explains what that evidence does demonstrate. The decision maker is evidently looking for the evidence which might make out the requirements of Condition 2. The decision maker has not misunderstood the policy. Rather, the policy has been applied and the evidence found to be wanting.

(12) The objectives of STAP and TAP were plainly to improve development in Afghanistan for the benefit of society and for the economy. The evaluative judgment of those objectives as against the terms of Condition 2 is one for the decision maker. The Claimant disagrees with the result, but that does not mean that the decision maker misunderstood or misapplied the policy.

(13) The review was undertaken with the benefit of the submissions made by the Claimant’s legal team. It is not a difficult policy to understand. I do not find there to be any arguable error in understanding and applying Condition 2. Ground 1 is an example of a legalistic and overly forensic approach to a decision.

(14) Ground 2 is put on the basis of rationality. I have concluded that this ground is not arguable for reasons which overlap with those that I have given in respect of ground 1:
(a) The consideration of the evidence is extensive and detailed
(b) The conclusion that the evidence did not make out the Condition 2 requirements was one which was reasonably open to the decision maker on the material which has been provided
(c) In particular, the expert evidence was something which the decision maker had to evaluate, not accept uncritically. The reasons given for the weight attached to that evidence are rational and sufficient reasons
(d) It is not the programme by which an applicant is employed that has to be shown to have made a substantive and positive contribution; it is the work of the individual applicant. It has to be shown that in the course of relevant employment, “the person”, the individual applicant, made a substantive and positive contribution to the UK Government’s national security objectives: Garnham J in R (AFA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2143 at [64].
(15) I have assessed the Defendant’s reasonable costs of the AoS at £1500.

Signed: MR JUSTICE KIMBLIN

Date: 17 August 2026