‘The claimants are both Afghan nationals who served as interpreters with the British Forces in Afghanistan. There are two policies in place to provide protection and benefits to Afghan nationals who worked for the British Government in Afghanistan. Between them they comprise the Afghan Scheme. One is known as the Intimidation Policy and the other as the Redundancy (or Ex Gratia) Policy. They offer financial benefits and relocation opportunities including, in limited circumstances, to the United Kingdom, to those who qualify. During the engagement of British Forces in Iraq many members of staff (including interpreters) were employed locally. A different scheme was put in place at the end of that engagement. The claimants’ case is that the Iraq Scheme was more generous.’
Held: A declaration was granted, but eth decision was not quashed: ‘ the answer to the crucial question as to why the Afghan LES were (in certain respects) treated less favourably than the Iraqi LES by the promulgation of the different Afghan Scheme is that, as compared with the conditions earlier experienced in Iraq, the different conditions prevailing in Afghanistan either required, or justified, such a different scheme.’
Judges:
Burnett LJ, Irwin J
Citations:
[2015] EWHC 1953 (Admin), [2015] WLR(D) 297
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hottak and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another CA 9-May-2016
Appeal against refusal of judicial review of decision not to provide protection of Afghan nationals who had assisted armed forces as transalators. A declaration had been granted but the decision had not been quashed.
Held: The appeal failed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Armed Forces, Immigration
Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.550020
