MUF was represented by Greg Ó Ceallaigh KC and Maria Moodie of the Garden Court Immigration Law Team, instructed by Cooley (UK) LLP.
The High Court has yet again quashed the government’s decision to refuse Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) protection and relocation to a former Afghan Judge who worked closely with the UK during his tenure at the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Kabul.
The impugned ARAP Review Refusal decision represented the Government’s fourth failed attempt to make a lawful Review decision in this case. Of the decisions not withdrawn of the Government’s own motion, following Pre-Action correspondence, two separate refusals have now been scrutinised and held unlawful by the High Court, resulting in declaratory relief and quashing orders. The first refusal was by Sir Peter Lane J in ACG, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence [2025] EWHC 2472 (Admin) and the second was by Mrs Justice Eady DBE in the extant proceedings MUF, R (On the Application Of) Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 2108 (Admin).
MUF served as a Judge in Afghanistan for more than 20 years, including in the specialist Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) in Kabul between 2011 and 2016. His vital work was alongside, in partnership with, and closely supporting His Majesty’s Government (HMG), presiding over hundreds of trials and sentencing convicted Taliban members for terrorist related offences. This work underpinned HMG’s counter-terrorism objectives in Afghanistan.
MUF’s ARAP application was refused on the basis that he had not established that he “worked in Afghanistan alongside a UK Government department, in partnership with or closely supporting and assisting that department” (ARAP 3.6 condition 1(iii)).
Following a rolled-up hearing on 16 July 2026, before Mrs Justice Eady DBE, MUF succeeded on his ground 3 [at § 102 – 118]. Eady J was troubled by the contradiction in the evidence, pertaining to the attendance at the ATC by HMG officials (or Adam Smith International officials acting on HMG’s behalf) to check on prosecutions and obtain reports, as well as the Defendant’s failure to have taken this issue into account and/or explain it as part of the eligibility assessment:
“Accepting (as I do) that there was a focus on the prosecution of terrorism cases, the establishment of an “effective end-to-end prosecution system” would still suggest an interest in how such cases were prosecuted at trial. That, it seems to me, would seem consistent with ASI attendances at court (referenced by the author of email 1) and might also explain why reports would be obtained from ATC judges presiding over such trials. Even if such reports were given orally and/or via ATC directors, that might, in turn, be seen as working alongside, in partnership with the FCDO, or closely supporting and assisting it, in securing the effective prosecution system it is accepted it was seeking to establish.” [at § 116]
Eady J recalled [at § 117] that the requirements on the Defendant were to have:
- Carried out a holistic assessment of the Claimant’s work;
- Including any assistance provided for a wider institutional relationship between the ATC and the FCDO, even if that went to issues relating to the prosecution of terrorism cases rather than the judicial conduct of the trial; and
- Given the heightened standard of review applied in these cases, to show that that every factor that might tell in the claimant’s favour had properly been taken into account (YH, paragraph 24)
Importantly, this case confirms the correct approach to the interpretative exercise required; “per Mahad, the eligibility requirements fall to be construed sensibly, according to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used, and it is not for the defendant to decide what terms such as working “alongside” or “in partnership with” mean in any particular factual context (ACG paragraph 51). Having regard to the guidance provided in earlier cases relating to ARAP applications by former Afghan judges (see paragraph 6, above), I note that a case-specific approach is required, holistically considering all relevant factors, which will include the substance of the work undertaken, the nature of the institution/s at which that work was done, and the nature of any connections between such institutions and the relevant UK government department” [at § 77]
The Review decision was declared unlawful and quashed, requiring a fresh decision.
Link to judgment: MUF, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 2108 (Admin) (07 August 2026)
