Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 1834 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE	CO/4721/2002
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION	
ADMINISTRATIVE  COURT

								Royal Courts of Justice
								The Strand
								London
								WC2A 2LL

								Friday  11  July  2003

	B e f o r e:

	MR  JUSTICE  NEWMAN

	THE  QUEEN

	on the application of

	FAHRI  BEN  BACHIR  MESSAOUDI

	- v -

	 SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
	_______________

	Computer Aided Transcription by
	Smith Bernal, 190 Fleet Street, London EC4
	Telephone No: 020 7421 4040
	(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
	_______________

	MR MILES JACKSON (instructed by Messrs White Ryland,
              London W12 2BR) appeared on behalf of THE CLAIMANT

	MISS PHILIPPA WHIPPLE (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) 
	appeared on behalf of THE DEFENDANT
_______________

J U D G M E N T

	Friday 11 July 2003
MR JUSTICE NEWMAN: 
1.	This is an adjourned application for judicial review, permission having been granted by Silber J. It has a long history. It was before the court on 22 January 2003 when it was adjourned. It was adjourned on the ground there was no decision, with the ability to restore it by another date. That date has now arisen and thus the matter is now before the court again.
2.	The claim is a difficult one to maintain. It relates to the processing and consideration of a claim which the claimant made for naturalisation. The Secretary of State has a discretion in this regard, which he must exercise in accordance with the British Nationality Act 1981. According to all the information before the court today he is doing so. 
3.	More recently steps have been taken to further the consideration. There has been a Metropolitan Police interview, but there are still investigations which the Secretary of State is entitled to make under section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Act. Until such times as he has considered them he is not in a position to make a fully considered decision. As it stands, and this is recognised by Mr Miles Jackson, if there was to be a decision now, bearing in mind the Secretary of State cannot be satisfied of the matters under Schedule 1 about which he needs to be satisfied, if forced to make a decision, it would be an adverse one. Nothing is to be gained from that. Thus the only question is: what can be gained by way of understanding or indication as to when it will be considered and decided upon because there are personal circumstances surrounding the application which do give rise to a sense of urgency on the part of the claimant? 
4.	The difficulty in that respect is that the court has no power over the way in which the Secretary of State considers the matter. Unless it was satisfied that he was abusing his powers, of which there is no suggestion or evidence in this case, the matter must proceed in accordance with the law. All that can be said is that there are still further investigations to be made. It is obvious the Secretary of State can, as and when those investigations are complete, give some indication as to when a decision will be made. That, I gather, has already been indicated in correspondence. It has been confirmed today by Miss Whipple on behalf of the Secretary of State as a future course, and I trust that will be done. 
5.	Thank you very much, Mr Jackson. You may have a detailed assessment. 
6.	MR JACKSON: Thank you.