British Embassy Guards Succeed in ARAP Judicial Review

In an important judgment handed down this week in the case of in R (CBC & Anor) v Secretary of State for Defence & Anor [2026] EWHC 2147 (Admin), the High Court has quashed the government’s refusal of protection under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”) for two former longstanding security guards at the British Embassy in Kabul. New decisions regarding ARAP eligibility will now be made in each of our clients’ cases following further representations.

The case concerned the Government's assessment of the Claimants’ eligibility for relocation from Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover. Both applications for protection under ARAP had been refused on the basis that the Government considered that our clients did not, in the course of their work guarding the British Embassy in Kabul for a combined total of over 20 years, 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”.

At the heart of the claim was the reality of the risks faced by the Claimants as external security guards in exposed roles protecting British personnel inside the embassy compound during the worst years of Taliban attacks on western targets in Kabul. The High Court accepted the substance of our clients’ challenge, finding that the decision-making process was fundamentally flawed. In particular, the Court upheld the Claimants’ ground of challenge based on the case of (CHD) v Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 566 (Admin), which found that the government should have published the policy which governed the Foreign Office’s input into the decision (the “Category Four (Cat 4) Operational Guidance – FCDO Sponsorship and Review” policy), as this identified important factors that applicants needed to be able to answer in their applications. The policy was not disclosed or published at the relevant time or applied in the Claimants’ cases. As a result, the judge held that the decisions affecting our clients could not stand and that they must now be reconsidered lawfully.

This judgment represents an important outcome not only for our clients and their families but other former British embassy guards with outstanding ARAP applications. The Court’s decision reinforces the requirement for government departments to engage properly with the evidence before them and to make known the criteria that they are applying, especially when determining applications involving life-and-death consequences.

Daniel Carey, Emily Soothill, Catherine Dowle, Oyku Aktas and Dante Dean Williams acted for the Claimants in both cases, instructing Tim Owen KC of Matrix Chambers and Emma Daykin of One Pump Court Chambers.