Even by Home Office standards, the decision to defend the case of R (Nmai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 1139 (Admin) looks particularly pointless. The claimant had an incredibly strong case and the judge allowed the claim with little hesitation. By allowing it to get to a final hearing the Home Office wasted the time and resources of everyone involved. The case was about the department’s longstanding refusal to issue the claimant with a British passport. Since 2002, officials had denied the identity of the claimant and refused to accept that she has British nationality. There was no question at any stage that the claimant’s brother is a British citizen and that he had a sister, Wendy Nmai, who would also be entitled to British citizenship.
The sole question therefore was whether the claimant was Wendy Nmai or not. The claimant sent the Home Office medical evidence based on genetic analysis in 2005 which proved beyond doubt that she and her brother are siblings. This was confirmed with further DNA testing in 2019 (“the likelihood of their full siblingship was 99.999995%”). The Home Office response on both occasions was that this did not prove her nationality, just that she was the sibling of a British national. The decision-maker failed to acknowledge that, once it was accepted that she was the sibling of her brother, the only logical conclusion could be that she was Wendy and therefore a British citizen.
Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/4tKtX8
