Decisions to refuse ARAP applications by British Embassy Guards unfair
The Claimants, two former longstanding security guards at the British Embassy in Kabul, were successful in their judicial review claim challenging the refusal of their ARAP applications.
The Claimants, two former longstanding security guards at the British Embassy in Kabul, were successful in their judicial review claim challenging the refusal of their ARAP applications.
Both of their applications were refused by reference to Condition 2 of Category 4, that they did not make a “substantive and positive contribution towards the achievement of one or more of the UK Government’s military or national security objectives with respect to Afghanistan”.
In R (CBC & Anor) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2026] EWHC 2147 (Admin) the High Court concluded that the Defendants’ failure to publish the Category 4 Operational Guidance lacked transparency which is inconsistent with the proper exercise of executive power. The decisions were quashed and remitted to the Defendants for reconsideration.
Emma Daykin was led by Tim Owen KC and instructed by Daniel Carey, Emily Soothill and Catherine Dowle of Deighton Pierce Glynn.