STS v Secretary of State for Defence: ARAP counter-narcotics eligibility and the limits of facilitation roles

In STS v The Secretary of State for Defence [2026] EWHC 363 (Admin), Mr Justice Sheldon dismissed a judicial review challenge to the refusal of relocation under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). The judgement clarifies the boundary between roles that genuinely advance UK national security objectives and those which merely facilitate their delivery.

STS worked as an Office Manager and Interpreter for Adam Smith International (ASI) between 2006 and 2010, on a DFID-funded project designed to strengthen Afghan counter-narcotics institutions. He was, for the first two years, the only Afghan member of staff, arranging meetings, interpreting for expatriate colleagues, and liaising with the Counter Narcotics Police, Counter Narcotics Directorate, and the Governor's Office. A former ASI employee described him as "instrumental" in establishing the programme. His ARAP application was nonetheless refused at both first instance and review, on the basis that he had not satisfied Condition 2 of ARAP 3.6 — that his work had made a substantive and positive contribution to the UK's counter-narcotics objectives.

The court's analysis turned on the character of both the programme and the individual's role within it. The decision-maker had found that the UK Support to Counter Narcotics Institutions Project was, in essence, a state-building exercise aimed at improving Afghan governance capacity, rather than a programme with a specific UK national security purpose. Any benefit to UK counter-narcotics objectives was characterised as secondary. Sheldon J accepted this framing and held that STS's role — co-ordinating meetings, managing the guesthouse, and interpreting — was one of facilitation rather than delivery. It did not require subject-specific knowledge, was not operational in any meaningful sense, and did not place STS in a position where his work had a material or direct effect on UK national security.

Four propositions from earlier case law informed the court's approach. The contribution made by the institution where an applicant worked is relevant but not decisive (LND1). The national security objective need not be the stated goal of the work, provided the individual's contribution advances it (CX1 No.2). It is the individual's work, not the programme, that must satisfy the test (AFA). And the scheme is not confined to professional or senior roles (MKA). Sheldon J confirmed that Condition 2 should not be conflated with the separate test in ARAP 3.5(b) applicable to interpreters — the "materially less efficient or successful" formulation — though he accepted that a contribution lacking material effect could not be characterised as substantive and positive.

The judgement also addresses evidential weight. The decision-maker's treatment of the supporting statement from the former ASI employee was challenged on the basis that institutional knowledge, even without personal acquaintance, should have been afforded greater weight. Sheldon J agreed that personal acquaintance was not a prerequisite for credible evidence, but found that the decision-maker had not in fact disregarded the statement — it had been considered and evaluated, and it was open to the decision-maker to treat it as providing context rather than compelling support for eligibility.

The case reinforces that ARAP Category 4 involves a genuinely demanding threshold. Administrative roles on development or governance programmes, even those with a counter-narcotics dimension, are unlikely to satisfy Condition 2 absent clear evidence that the individual's own contribution had a direct and material effect on the advancement of UK national security objectives in Afghanistan.

Copyright & permissions