Good character and criminal convictions in British citizenship applications

Anybody over the age of ten who applies for registration or naturalisation as a British citizen needs to meet the so-called “good character requirement”. This is a mandatory requirement set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Where a person is deemed by the Home Office not to be “of good character” then his or her application for citizenship will be refused.

There is no further definition of what is meant by “good character” in the British Nationality Act 1981. However, there is guidance available from the Home Office as to what is likely to be considered behaviour that indicates a person is not “of good character”. 

Home Office guidance on good character and bad character

The current guidance as to what factors the Secretary of State will consider when assessing a person’s good character is set out in nationality policy guidance document Good character requirement.

The guidance runs to 59 pages and includes a long, non-exhaustive, list of issues which would, in the Secretary of State’s view, indicate that a person is not of good character and would therefore lead to refusal.

The list includes issues which are uncontroversial and to be expected, such as war crimes and terrorism. It also includes more questionable factors when it comes to deciding whether a person is of “good character”, including issues of bankruptcy and liquidation.

The sections of the guidance which cause the most concern to applicants, partly because it is not always clear when they do or do not apply, are those on deception and dishonesty and on breaches of immigration law.

Criminal convictions and good character

Unsurprisingly, previous criminal convictions will often lead to an application for naturalisation or registration being refused on good character grounds. As part of the then Home Secretary Suella Braverman’s “crackdown” on criminals applying for British citizenship, the Home Office reformed the way in which criminality is treated under the good character test from 31 July 2023 onwards.

For applications made prior to 31 July 2023, the old series of sentence-based “tariffs” or periods of exclusion from qualifying for British citizenship will continue to be applied:

For applications made on or after 31 July 2023, the Home Office takes a more restrictive approach.

First, there are a set of criteria which will normally trigger refusal. This means that there is a presumption towards refusal in all of these cases, but it remains possible for a caseworker to exercise discretion and grant an application in exceptional cases. In other words, refusal in these circumstances is very likely, but not mandatory. The good character guidance says:

 A person will normally be refused if they:

• have received a custodial sentence of at least 12 months in the UK or overseas
• have consecutive sentences totalling at least 12 months in the UK or overseas

• are a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law

• have committed an offence which has caused serious harm

• have committed a sexual offence or their details are recorded by the police on a register

If one of the above refusal categories is triggered, a caseworker can then go on to consider whether an “exceptional grant” is suitable if there are mitigating circumstances. The guidance sets out some examples considered to warrant an “exceptional grant”, but as the phrase suggests, these are likely to be exceptional situations.

This set of criteria is followed by a lesser set of criteria which can still trigger refusal, but not always. The wording of this set of criteria is clunky. Unlike the set of criteria above, the guidance starts by saying:

A person must be refused if they have:

• a custodial sentence of less than 12 months
• a non-custodial sentence or out-of-court disposal recorded on their criminal record

This is qualified however, by the next part which says:

and you are not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that they are of good character. [Emphasis added].

The balance of probabilities will be a familiar legal concept to many readers. For the Home Office’s purposes in applying the good character test to criminals, the following interpretation is used:

An assessment of whether or not a person is of good character on the balance of probabilities, must take account of all available information concerning the applicant’s character, weighing any negative factors around criminality against mitigating factors such as contributions a person has made to society or any significant proportions of a person’s life spent not offending.

You must consider the individual circumstances of the case; what may be appropriate for one case will not be appropriate for another. Each application must be carefully considered on an individual basis on its own merits, giving consideration to the (non-exhaustive) list of factors below:

The guidance then lists and elaborates on the following factors which must be weighed in the balance:

• Length of time since offences occurred
• Number of offences
• Period over which offences were committed
• Seriousness of the offence
• Any escalation in seriousness of offences
• Nature of offences
• Age at date of conviction
• Exceptional or other circumstances in the person’s life when they committed the offences
• Other positive mitigating factors showing genuine and meaningful attempts to change behaviour, such as engagement with rehabilitation programmes or voluntary work.

Custodial convictions 

It is the entire sentence imposed on an individual which will be looked at, not the actual time spent in prison. A suspended prison sentence will be treated as a “non-custodial offence or other out of court disposal that is recorded on a person’s criminal record”, unless the sentence is subsequently ‘activated’.

Sentences imposed overseas will normally be treated as if they had been imposed in the UK. However:

It will normally be appropriate to disregard a conviction for behaviour that is considered legitimate in the UK. Examples of offences abroad that you may disregard include homosexuality or membership of a trade union. However, the fact that there may be no equivalent for an overseas offence in British law does not in itself mean that the offence should automatically be disregarded, and you must look at what that offence indicates about the person’s character. A willingness to disobey the law in another country may be relevant even if their conduct would have been lawful in the UK. Approval to disregard offences must be obtained from the chief caseworker.

The guidance also contains detailed information as to what constitutes “out of court disposals”. They include cautions, warnings, community sentences, hospital orders and fines. They do not include fixed penalty notices; however, these may be relevant when making the overall assessment as to whether a person is of “good character” (see below).

Example

Rebecca was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on 1 January 2016. She served 18 months in custody before spending the remainder of her sentence out on licence.

An application to become a British citizen will normally be refused, no matter how much time passes, unless there are reasons for an exceptional grant. Had Rebecca’s sentence been suspended, it would be treated as a “non-custodial sentence or out of court disposal”. This would have allowed Rebecca to make an application at any time, but she would need to satisfy the decision maker that on the balance of probabilities she is of good character.

In some cases, an applicant may be refused even when they have never been charged or convicted:

In some cases, information may reveal that a person is known to have committed or is strongly suspected of criminal activity, but for various reasons has not been charged or convicted, or charges have been dropped or the person acquitted. For example, cases may be settled out of court, or a prosecution may be considered no longer sustainable due to insufficient or inadmissible evidence. Careful consideration should be taken of the nature of the information and the reliability of the source. Where there is firm and convincing information to suggest that a person is a knowing and active participant in serious crime, for example, drug trafficking, the application will normally be refused.

Finally, one should always remember that it is important to declare all criminal convictions, including pending ones. An applicant who fails to do so may see their application refused not only on the ground of the criminal conviction, but also on the ground of deception (see below).

Do driving and parking offences have to be declared for a British citizenship application?

The short answer is yes.  It is important to disclose not just convictions, but also fixed penalty notices relating to road traffic offences such as speeding, parking, and other traffic violations. Where an offence is a very minor one, there is more danger from failing to disclose and being accused of deception than from refusal on good character grounds because of the offence itself. 

Fixed penalty notices are not technically criminal convictions. However, we have already seen that the good character requirement for naturalisation is not just about criminal convictions, it is also about wider behaviour.

Whilst the naturalisation form, Form AN, acknowledges that fixed penalty notices do not form part of a criminal record, the form still asks for disclosure:

We will carry out criminal record checks on all applicants. You must give details of all criminal convictions. This includes road traffic offences (including all drink driving offences). Fixed Penalty Notices (such as speeding or parking tickets) do not form part of a person’s criminal record and will not be considered in the caseworker’s assessment of character unless either:

• you have failed to pay and there were criminal proceedings as a result

• you have received multiple fixed penalty notices

Please give full details in the box after 3.16 (below).

The accompanying Guide AN document is much clearer, however. It states: 

Fixed penalty notices such as those issued under the coronavirus Regulations , or for traffic offences such as speeding or parking tickets must also be disclosed, although will not normally be taken into account unless you have failed to pay and there were criminal proceedings as a result, or you have received multiple fixed penalty notices in a short space of time.

Where a fixed penalty notice or fiscal fine in Scotland has been referred to a court due to non-payment, or the notice has been unsuccessfully challenged by the person in court, we will consider it as a conviction and assess it in line with the new sentence imposed.

Example

Luke’s criminal record is blank. However, in the past three years, he has received nine fixed penalty notices for traffic offences. In addition, Luke received a verbal warning for smoking marijuana in a public park last month.

Luke’s criminal record is technically blank because none of the above count as criminal convictions. However, he will still need to disclose these matters in an application for naturalisation. Failure to do so may lead to him being found to have deliberately withheld information and being refused on that basis. Disclosure, however, also risks refusal on good character grounds because the number of fixed penalty notices over a short period of time might indicate that Luke is a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law.

Do old or “spent” convictions have to be declared?

Yes, unless the applicant resides in Northern Ireland. Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, some criminal convictions become “spent” after a certain period of time. This means that the offence does not have to be declared for most non-immigration purposes, for example when applying for employment or insurance.

However, criminal offences never become spent for the purposes of immigration and nationality law. The law on rehabilitation for immigration and nationality purposes was changed by section 140 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with effect from 1 October 2012.

This means that all convictions, including spent convictions, have to be declared in an application for naturalisation. The guidance on the good character requirement confirms this:

Applicants are required to disclose all convictions, regardless of whether or not they are ‘spent’ under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (1974 Act). You may take into account any past convictions regardless of when they took place, as nationality decisions are exempt from section 4 of the 1974 Act that provides for certain convictions to become ‘spent’ after fixed periods of time.

This is not the case, however, for applicants who reside in Northern Ireland. These applicants are:

only required to disclose unspent convictions as defined in the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.

At page 58 of the guidance there is a table of rehabilitation periods applicable to residents of Northern Ireland. Arguably, though, even applicants who reside in Northern Ireland should declare all of their spent convictions, as the form simply asks “Have you been convicted of any criminal offence in the UK or any other country?” and does not specify that only unspent convictions should be declared. There is a real risk of a Home Office caseworker based in Liverpool missing the special provisions for Northern Ireland. This could cause refusal on grounds of deception and lead to wasted time and money seeking reconsideration.

It is very important that all applicants declare all their convictions, including driving offences and spent convictions, to avoid seeing their application refused on the basis of deception (see below).

War crimes, terrorism and other activity contrary to the public good

Parts of the nationality policy guidance dealing with war crimes and terrorism are blanked out, so we do not know exactly what the instructions are to decision-makers. What we do know, is that if someone has involved in war crimes etc, they are probably not going to be a person of good character.

The part of the guidance that isn’t redacted reads:

If there is information to suggest that the person has been involved in international crimes or serious human rights violations, they will not normally be considered to be of good character and the application will fall to be refused.

You must refuse an application if the person’s activities cast ‘serious doubts’ on their character.

Financial soundness

When deciding on an applicant’s good character, the Home Office may also look at their “financial soundness”, which includes:

• bankruptcy;
• liquidation of a company of which the applicant was a director;
• debt; and
• non-payment of council tax (where the person unreasonably failed to pay or committed fraud in an attempt to pay less).

Bankruptcy or liquidation will not be automatic reasons for refusal, except where fraud has occurred. In all other cases, the decision-maker will look at the level of culpability of the applicant in the events which led to bankruptcy or liquidation and the timing of the bankruptcy or liquidation. In particular:

You must consider whether the person was reckless or irresponsible in their financial affairs leading to their bankruptcy or their company’s liquidation. If so, it is likely to be reflected by a disqualification order which prevents a person from being a Director or taking part in the management of a limited company for a period of up to 15 years.

Details of all disqualifications are on the Companies House website. Where a person has a disqualification order, an application will normally be refused.

Similarly, debt in itself will not normally be a reason for refusal, unless it is NHS debt of over £500.

If someone is found to have NHS debt of over £500, the guidance directs caseworkers to write out to the applicant and ask them to provide evidence that they have cleared it.

Where a person deliberately and recklessly builds up debts and there is no evidence of a serious intention to pay them off, the decision maker will normally refuse the application.

Notoriety 

Citing the not-so-helpful case of King Henry VIII as an example of notoriety because of beheading two of his wives, notorious applicants who do not engage any other specific parts of the good character test could potentially be refused on grounds of notoriety. The non-exhaustive list examples of notoriety given in the guidance are:

• publicly expressing unsavoury views on a subject such as race, religion or sexuality which do not fall within the definition of extremism in the extremism section [of the guidance]

• persistent anti-social behaviour such as public drug use or excessive noise pollution

• persistently and deliberately flouting the law

If an applicant’s behaviour has led them to be notorious in either their local community or the wider community, they can be refused. Caseworkers can consider media reporting or even social media postings and are even directed to consider interviewing the applicant. If the applicant’s behaviour is such that a grant might attract adverse publicity or press, caseworkers are directed to take this into account in – but not let it unduly influence – their decision.

Parenting

Applications by parents of unruly children will not normally be refused because of a child’s actions, unless they indicate that the parent’s own behaviour demonstrates bad character.

Deception or dishonesty

Present or past alleged deception or dishonesty by an applicant is one of the most common reasons for refusal on good character grounds. In practice, a decision maker will normally refuse an application where the applicant has used deception:

• in their application for British citizenship;
• in a previous immigration application; or
• in their dealings with other departments of the government, including in relation to benefits.

Where deception was used in a previous immigration application, it does not matter whether the deception was material to the grant of leave or not. Even if the deception was not relevant a later application for naturalisation will still normally be refused.

Where the deception relates to a previous immigration application, an application for British citizenship will be refused for ten years starting with the date on which that deception was discovered or admitted.

When the deception relates to the current application for citizenship any subsequent application for citizenship will be normally be refused if it is made within ten years from the date of the refusal unless the failure to disclose was unintentional and concerned a one-off non-custodial sentence or out of court disposal.

Where deception is committed in an application for naturalisation or registration and is not uncovered at the time of the application, the Home Office has a power to later deprive a person of their British citizenship. This has occurred in some cases involving, for example, successful false asylum claims leading to a grant of a settlement and eventually to naturalisation.

Overstaying, illegal entry and breaches of immigration law

In December 2014 the Home Office introduced new guidance on good character and started to refuse naturalisation applications on the basis of poor previous immigration behaviour. This is now one of the most common reasons for refusal on the basis of good character. Further restrictions were introduced in February 2025.

For applications made after 10 February 2025, there is in effect a permanent exclusion from ever applying successfully for British citizenship in cases where the applicant entered the UK illegally as an adult. This policy obviously affects refugees, and is, likely, unlawful, though that is a matter of ongoing litigation.

In cases where the applicant was still a child, caseworkers are directed to exercise discretion and normally disregard immigration breaches that were outside of the child’s control. Note that this direction to caseworkers does not come under the section relating to illegal entry (which contains no such direction, albeit it presumably ought to apply).

There is also effectively a permanent exclusion for any applicant who:

• is currently, or has previously been, involved in an attempt to assist someone in the evasion of immigration control;
• is hiring or has hired illegal workers; or
• was deprived of their citizenship on “conducive to the public good” grounds (e.g. because they committed a serious criminal offence).

A decision maker will normally refuse an application if, in the ten years prior to the application, an applicant:

• entered or attempted to enter into a sham marriage or civil partnership, or helped another person to enter into a sham marriage or civil partnership. The ten years will start from when the deception is discovered or admitted;
• cheated in a Knowledge of Life in the UK test, or an English language test. Again, the ten years start running when the deception is discovered or admitted;
• was prosecuted for making a false statement in an application;
• was complicit in deception on the part of referees;
• failed to pay litigation debt owed to the Home Office where a court has ordered payment of costs;
• failed to comply with immigration requirements, for example accessed public funds when prohibited from doing so, worked in the UK without permission to, studied with the appropriate permission, failed to report;
• worked illegally. Any person who has worked illegally in the previous ten years will normally be refused. This includes people lawfully in the UK but without the appropriate work permissions attached to their status, for example visitors, or students working in excess of their permitted hours; or
• was deprived of their citizenship because of fraud, false representation or the concealment of material fact. The ten-year period will start running from the date the deprivation order was issued.

Unlawful residence

From the commencement of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 on 28 June 2022, a person is treated as meeting the good character requirement even if in the ten-year period prior to the application they had committed immigration breaches relating to illegal entry (other than illegal entry relating to applications made on or after 10 February 2025), absconding or overstaying so long as:

• they apply for naturalisation or registration as British under section 4(2), 6(1) or 6(2) of the 1981 Act after 28 June 2022;
• they have indefinite leave to remain or indefinite leave to enter, also known as settlement; and
• no concerns relating to their character have arisen since the grant of settlement which would cast doubt on the decision.

The Home Office may still find it appropriate to consider immigration breaches alongside good character factors (for example, because information has come to light which, had it been known at the time of granting indefinite leave to remain, may have led to refusal):

• If the person has overstayed the application will normally be refused unless it is the sole adverse factor in the assessment of their character and either:
  • Their application for leave to remain was made on/after 24 November 2016 and it did not fall for refusal on the grounds of overstaying due to paragraph 39E of the Immigration Rules, or
  • the overstaying was not their fault (e.g. where their application had initially been refused then the decision was withdrawn by the Home Office)
• If the person entered the UK illegally the application will normally be refused if the entry took place in the ten years leading up to the date of the application.
• If the person has absconded (i.e. failed to comply with a requirement to report to the Home Office) the application will normally be refused. The ten years will start from the date they last brought themselves to the attention of the Home Office since absconding.

It is unclear from the guidance whether a person who, say, missed one single reporting event for reasons such as illness or even mere forgetfulness, would be penalised for the subsequent ten years in the same manner as, say, a person who wilfully ignored their reporting conditions and went to ground to evade immigration control.

It is important to remember that, in addition to the factors listed above, the Secretary of State has the discretion to refuse an application whenever she is not satisfied that the applicant is of good character. The guidance confirms that:

If the person does not clearly fall into one of the categories outlined above but there are doubts about their character, [the decision maker] may still refuse the application.

Dealing with the good character guidance in practice

Firstly, it is important to note that the refusal of an application for British citizenship does not by itself prejudice an applicant’s current immigration status or future applications for British citizenship. In other words, an applicant who submits an application for British citizenship which is refused will retain their current immigration status. The person will also be free to submit a new application for British citizenship in the future, if or when they meet the good character requirement.

The exception to this rule is where the reason for refusal is that the applicant has used deception in the current application. In this case, any new application will be refused for a period of ten years.

In many cases it might well be that the practical advice is to wait until a person has a straightforward application. For example, in the case of a person who has overstayed and will struggle to show that they did not work during that time, it might well be that they will want to wait until ten years have passed since the end of their period of overstay. This is especially true with individuals with limited financial means, who will be unwilling to risk spending such large amounts of money.

At the time of writing, an application for naturalisation costs £1,630, out of which only £130 (the administrative cost for the citizenship ceremony) will be refunded if the application is refused.

However, some potential applicants may be more willing to take risks and be willing to try submitting an application, even when it is likely that it will be refused and they will need to challenge it. Importantly, the good character requirement guidance is guidance only. None of the grounds for refusal in the guidance are mandatory as such. It is always possible to put arguments forward to rebut the presumption of refusal.

Granting in exceptional circumstances despite poor character

According to the Home Office guidance, an application for British citizenship will only be granted in very limited circumstances when there are factors which would bring the application to normally be refused. In particular, the guidance offers the following examples of factors that would lead to exceptional grants:

• the person’s criminal conviction is for an offence which is not recognised in the UK or there is no comparable offence, for example homosexuality or membership of a trade union: see convictions and sentences imposed outside of the UK

• a person in their late sixties has offending committed a long time ago, which would normally require refusal of citizenship due to a 2-year custodial sentence, but over 40 years have passed since the last conviction with no further offending or other adverse factors. When balanced against the earlier offending, the significant proportion of their UK residency that was spent in compliance with the law and avoiding wider character concerns, indicates that they are now of good character

• a person who entered illegally 14 years ago would normally require refusal of citizenship as an illegal entrant but has been recognised as a victim of trafficking and subsequently granted refugee status. They haven’t acquired any other notable adverse character issues during their residency, indicative that on a balance of probabilities they are now of good character

• a person with one single 14-month custodial sentence, from 12 years ago when they were aged 19, which would normally require refusal of citizenship under the sentence-based threshold. Since their conviction they have committed to reform by actively engaging with youth and mental health charities and promoting the reduction of youth crime, indicative that on a balance of probabilities they are now of good character

• a person who has a significant partially unpaid NHS debt that would normally require refusal of citizenship, but who has mitigating circumstances demonstrating that the debt was accumulated for life sustaining treatment which is now impacting their employment opportunities and ability to repay the remainder

This suggests a very strict interpretation of the guidance, which is arguably incorrect. Judges have suggested that the Secretary of State should apply the guidance in a more flexible way.

However, there is a marked difference between the theory and practice of law. Realistically, in most cases the outcome of an application for naturalisation will be whatever the Home Office decides, and the Home Office case worker deciding the application will almost always follow and apply the guidance. In some cases it may be feasible as a matter of law to bring a legal challenge by way of an application for judicial review. But very few rejected applicants will want to go to the expense and inconvenience of pursuing a legal challenge.

If bringing a judicial review against a refusal on good character grounds, the case of R (Sandy) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 640 (Admin).

Taking into account positive evidence of good character

As we have seen, the nationality policy guidance mainly guides officials as to when to refuse applications on bad character grounds. The guidance does little to encourage officials to take into account evidence of good character, though the latest iteration of the guidance does confirm that positive factors must also be considered:

Consideration must be given to all aspects of a person’s character, including both negative factors, for example criminality, immigration law breaches and deception, and positive factors, for example contributions a person has made to society. The list of factors is not exhaustive.

“Must” means that it is mandatory for caseworkers to consider positive factors. Failure to do so would likely be unlawful.

The main case on positive evidence of good character is Hiri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 254 (Admin). It offers good guidance on how the Secretary of State should assess the good character of an applicant. In particular, the Administrative Court confirmed that the Secretary of State’s guidance should not be applied inflexibly, and that a comprehensive assessment of the applicant’s good character had to be made. At paragraph 36, the judgment reads:

The [Secretary of State] is entitled to adopt a policy on the way in which criminal convictions will normally be considered by her caseworkers, but it should not be applied mechanistically and inflexibly. There has to be a comprehensive assessment of each applicant’s character, as an individual, which involves an exercise of judgment, not just ticking boxes on a form.

In order for the Secretary of State or her officials to consider evidence of good character, that evidence must be submitted in the first place.

There is no encouragement in application form or document checklist to submit positive evidence of good character such as evidence of voluntary or charity work, achievements, character references or similar.

Normally there is no need to submit anything of this nature, but if you are worried about a refusal on bad character grounds and you want officials to consider such evidence then you need to submit it. There is no duty on officials to pro-actively request or search for evidence that might assist an applicant.

On a practical note, it will not be possible to bring a legal case claiming that officials have failed to consider evidence of good character if that evidence was not actually submitted to those officials.

See also R (on the application of SA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1611 (Admin) on the need for a holistic approach to the assessment of good character in the context of a child. 

Who does not meet the meet the good character requirement?

Exceptions to the good character requirement

Finally, it is worth noting that the good character guidance does not apply for a number of categories of people. This includes applications made under the statelessness provisions in Schedule 2 of the 1981 Act, and applications made under the following sections:

• 4B, 4C, 4G, 4H, 4I, 17A, 17B, 17D, 17E, 17F, 17H
• 4F – person unable to be registered under other provisions of this Act, on the basis that the person would be entitled to register under paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule 2 to the BNA 1981
• 4K – apart from where the person qualifies on the basis that they would have been able to become a British overseas territories citizen (BOTC) through registration under sections 15(3), 17(2) and 17(5) of the BNA 1981
• 4L – where a person would have had an automatic claim
• 17C – apart from where the person qualifies on the basis that they would have been able to become a BOTC through registration under sections 15(3), 17(2) and 17(5) of the BNA 1981
• 17I – where a person would have had an automatic claim