Many Afghans who served the British authorities faithfully prior to the withdrawal of NATO troops from the war-torn country have been evacuated to the UK – but what about their families? The High Court considered that issue in a guideline case concerning the children of an Afghan judge.
The judge performed a risky and high-profile role in his homeland prior to the Taliban takeover. His work involved a close partnership with the British Embassy in Kabul, which paid part of his salary and assisted him and his family with their personal security arrangements. Many of the criminals he convicted, including dangerous drug barons, had been released since NATO troops departed.
Following the Taliban’s return to power, the threat to the judge and his wife was eventually recognised by a panel operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and they were evacuated to the UK. However, their four adult children were left behind in Afghanistan. The judge’s request for them to be allowed to join him in Britain, outside the ordinary immigration rules, was repeatedly refused.
Ruling on his judicial review challenge to those decisions, the Court noted that, prior to his evacuation, an MoD advisor had assessed the risk of him being subjected to reprisals by the Taliban as almost certain or highly likely. The risk was put as high as 80-95 per cent. The advisor further expressed the view that his children would be exposed to the same level of risk as he was. Such a risk, the Court observed, could not rationally be regarded as other than compelling.
Before the decisions were made, however, the level of risk faced by the children was downgraded from high to medium at most. That assessment was reached on the premise that only one of the children had been arrested by the Taliban. That was a serious error of fact in that the evidence indicated that the man and both his sons had been detained and that one of the latter had been tortured.
In quashing the decisions, the Court found that the reasoning process that led up to them was so seriously flawed as to render them illogical and irrational. The ruling meant that the MoD would be required urgently to reconsider the judge’s application to be reunited with his children in the UK. The Court heard further argument on the precise terms of the order that should be made.