Good Character Guidance for British Citizenship

These cover a wide range of behaviour, and each area is considered in the context of the individual applicant’s circumstances. The main factors that inform the good character requirement for British citizenship include:

• If you have criminal convictions, the Home Office will look at what the offences were, how serious they were, the sentence you received, and how much time has passed. More serious offending, including custodial sentences and offences involving violence or sexual harm, is treated with particular care and may make a grant of citizenship much less likely
• Breaches of immigration law, such as overstaying a visa, entering the UK without permission, or failing to comply with visa conditions, will be taken into account. The impact will depend on how serious the breach was, how long it lasted, and whether you have since regularised your status
• Deliberate tax evasion, benefit fraud, or other dishonest financial conduct can count against you in a good character assessment. Ordinary debts or financial difficulties are not a problem on their own, but they may be relevant if they involve dishonesty or repeated failure to deal with court orders
• Any evidence that you have been dishonest in your dealings with public authorities, such as providing false information in immigration or benefit applications, is taken very seriously. Even where there has been no criminal conviction, proven deception can lead to refusal on good character grounds
• Any association with terrorism, extremist organisations, or crimes against humanity is treated as extremely serious and will, in most cases, result in the application being refused
• The Home Office will look at your behaviour over at least the last 10 years to see whether you have complied with UK law and respected the rights of others. More serious issues, or patterns of concerning behaviour, can still be relevant even if they began more than 10 years ago

Before the changes introduced in early 2025, the Home Office’s good character policy allowed some historic immigration breaches to be given less weight when deciding naturalisation applications. In particular, certain breaches that had happened more than 10 years before the date of application could, in some cases, be disregarded, so long as there were no other serious concerns about the person’s character.

Under that earlier approach, caseworkers had more room to take individual circumstances into account. For example, some people who had entered the UK without permission many years ago but had since built stable lives, supported their families, and contributed positively to their communities could still be assessed favourably on grounds of good character.

This more flexible framework meant that long‑term residents, including some refugees and people who had originally claimed asylum after an irregular journey, had a clearer path to becoming British citizens despite earlier immigration problems.

The updated policy introduced in 2025 has significantly increased the difficulty for many people with a history of illegal entry or other serious immigration breaches to meet the good character requirement, and it is likely to affect a large number of prospective applicants who might previously have been able to naturalise.

In February 2025, the Home Office brought in a significantly updated version of its good character guidance for citizenship applications. One of the important changes affects people who first entered the UK illegally.

Under the new policy, anyone applying for British citizenship from February 2025 who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused on grounds of good character, even if that entry occurred many years ago. This is a major change from the earlier approach, where some very old immigration breaches could, in certain cases, be given less weight after a long period of lawful residence and good behaviour.

The updated guidance is particularly strict for people who reached the UK without the required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation after what the Home Office calls a “dangerous journey”. This includes, for example, travelling across the Channel in a small boat or being concealed in a lorry or other vehicle.

It does not cover people who arrived in the UK as passengers on a commercial airline with the usual travel arrangements, although any separate immigration breaches can still be considered.

Citizenship applications submitted before the new rules took effect in February 2025 are not caught by this change and should continue to be assessed under the policy that applied at the time they were made. For those earlier cases, the previous, more flexible approach to historic illegal entry and other old immigration breaches can still apply.

Some limited discretion does still exist under the new guidance. In a small number of exceptional situations, such as where the illegal entry was outside the person’s control because they were trafficked, or where they were a child at the time and not responsible for the decision to travel, caseworkers may be able to make an exceptional grant of citizenship.

However, these exceptions are tightly drawn, and most people with a history of illegal entry should expect the new rules to make obtaining British citizenship significantly more difficult.

The February 2025 changes to the good character guidance have attracted strong criticism from many immigration lawyers, advocacy organisations, and some politicians. A major judicial review has been launched, and other legal challenges and pre‑action letters are being used to argue that the new guidance is unlawful.

Wilson Advisers LLP has been prominent in bringing a judicial review challenge, arguing that the guidance misdirects Home Office officials in assessing naturalisation applications.

Their case says the policy does not properly reflect key protections for refugees under the Refugee Convention and fails to ensure that decision‑makers fully consider the impact of refusal on family and private life rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Critics highlight that refugees who apply for British citizenship will often have spent at least six years in the UK by the time they are eligible to naturalise, having passed the Life in the UK test, proved their English, and paid a high non‑refundable application fee of £1,605, plus the separate ceremony fee.

Despite this, many now face a real risk of refusal solely because of how they entered the UK years earlier, even if they have since complied with the law and integrated into society.

Advocacy groups are particularly concerned that the policy may hit the most vulnerable applicants hardest, including survivors of modern slavery and trafficking who often had little or no control over how they came to the UK. They argue that applying a strict rule to people in these situations is unfair and out of step with wider safeguarding commitments.

More broadly, some commentators have called for a wider overhaul of the good character framework. They say that the lack of a clear definition in the legislation leads to inconsistency and uncertainty in decision‑making, and that a more detailed and transparent set of statutory criteria could be fairer and reduce the risk of arbitrary or unpredictable refusals.

Most British citizenship applications, including standard naturalisation applications, must be supported by two referees. These referees are asked to confirm that they know you, that the photograph is a true likeness, and that the information in your application is, to the best of their knowledge, accurate.

The requirements for referees are:

• One referee must be a British citizen who holds a British passport, is aged 25 or over, and is a professional person or someone of suitable professional standing (for example, a teacher, civil servant, bank official, or company director)
• The second referee can be of any nationality and must also be aged 25 or over. They must know you personally and be willing to confirm your identity. It is sensible, and often helpful, to choose someone who is also a professional or otherwise of good standing, even where this is not strictly required
• Both referees must have known you personally for at least three years
• Neither referee should have a recent serious criminal record. The Home Office will not accept referees who have been convicted of an offence that resulted in a custodial sentence within the last 10 years

Referees should not be closely related to you (for example, they should not be an immediate family member or partner), should not live at the same address as each other, and should not be directly employed by you. The Home Office may carry out checks to confirm that referees are suitable and that their signatures are genuine.

Providing false information on a citizenship application, including through a referee, can be a criminal offence under section 46 of the British Nationality Act 1981 and may also lead to the application being refused on grounds of good character.

When choosing referees, it is wise to select people who know you well enough to speak about your character over the period they have known you, and who are likely to be regarded as reliable and credible by the Home Office.

The Windrush Compensation Scheme was set up to provide financial redress to members of the Windrush generation, mainly Commonwealth citizens who came to the UK between 1948 and 1973, who suffered losses because they were wrongly treated as if they had no right to live in the UK.

This mistreatment, now known as the Windrush scandal, led to some people losing their jobs, being refused healthcare or benefits, and in some cases being detained or even removed from the UK.

Eligibility to apply under the Windrush Compensation Scheme includes:

• Commonwealth citizens who were settled in the UK before 1 January 1973 and were living here on or around that date, even if they have since spent short periods abroad
• Commonwealth citizens who had the right of abode and were ordinarily resident in the UK on 1 January 1973
• Children of eligible Commonwealth citizens, where the child came to live with their parent or parents in the UK before they turned 18
• Certain close family members of a primary eligible person, where the family member suffered losses directly because the primary person could not prove their right to live in the UK

The scheme allows people to claim compensation for a wide range of losses, including immigration fees and legal costs they should not have had to pay, loss of employment or income, being wrongly refused benefits or housing, difficulties accessing healthcare, and problems with banking or other financial services linked to being wrongly treated as having no lawful status.

By mid‑2024, the government reported that more than £80 million had been paid out across thousands of claims under the scheme, and it announced a dedicated Windrush Compensation Advocacy Support Fund, worth around £1.5 million, to help applicants get advice and support with making claims. The exact amounts and number of payments continue to change as more claims are decided.

Separate from the compensation scheme, the Windrush Scheme is designed to help eligible Commonwealth citizens and their family members obtain documentation confirming their status and, in some cases, apply for British citizenship without paying the usual application fee.

People who qualify under the Windrush Scheme can often secure their status or citizenship without paying the standard citizenship fee, taking the Life in the UK test, or proving English language ability, but they still need to meet the good character requirement where this applies.

Meeting the good character requirement can be genuinely challenging for some applicants, especially those with more complicated histories. Common problem areas include:

• Criminal convictions: Even older convictions can still affect a citizenship application, depending on the offence, its seriousness, the sentence imposed, and how much time has passed. Applicants who have received a custodial sentence of four years or more will be refused citizenship on a permanent basis, and even shorter prison or suspended sentences often lead to refusal for a number of years
• Irregular entry or periods of overstaying: Entering the UK without permission or overstaying a visa can cause serious difficulties, even if you later receive leave to remain. This is especially true since the 2025 changes for people who first came to the UK by illegal entry or dangerous journeys, although each case is still looked at in light of the specific facts
• Non‑disclosure of information: Failing to declare relevant information, such as previous criminal convictions, cautions, fixed penalties, or adverse immigration history, is itself treated as a character issue. In many cases, attempts to hide something are viewed more seriously than the original matter itself and can lead to refusal
• Pending charges or investigations: Citizenship is not granted if there is a current criminal charge, an ongoing court case, or an active investigation that could lead to prosecution. The Home Office will wait until the outcome is known before deciding on an application

There is no right of appeal to an independent tribunal against a refusal of a naturalisation application on good character grounds. If an application is refused, the main options are to ask the Home Office to reconsider if you believe a clear mistake was made, to seek specialist advice about the possibility of bringing a judicial review, or to wait and reapply at a later date once enough time has passed or your circumstances have changed in a way that strengthens your case.

The Home Office’s guidance on good character has been updated several times in recent years.

In 2022, the guidance was revised to bring it into line with changes made by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including updates to how lawful residence and certain immigration breaches are treated, and to align the approach to criminality more closely with the refusal grounds in Part 9 of the Immigration Rules.

The changes that took effect in February 2025 are widely seen as the most significant revision for some time, introducing a much stricter approach to people who entered the UK illegally or who arrived after making what the Home Office calls a “dangerous journey”.

Commentators have described this policy shift as part of the government’s wider effort to deter irregular migration, particularly Channel crossings by small boat, and the guidance now makes clear that such journeys will lead to refusal on good character grounds.

Following legal challenges and pressure from advocacy groups and parliamentarians, the Home Office has already provided some clarification on how the policy should be applied to vulnerable groups such as children and recognised victims of trafficking or modern slavery and has indicated that it will continue to keep the guidance under review.

However, the position remains complex and fast‑moving, and anyone with a history of irregular entry or similar immigration issues should obtain specialist legal advice before making a citizenship application.

After the updated good character guidance was introduced in 2025, the Home Office came under scrutiny in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

In response to parliamentary questions, including from former Home Secretary Lord Blunkett, a Home Office minister confirmed that, under the new policy, the starting point is that people who arrived in the UK illegally will have their citizenship applications refused on grounds of good character, unless they can show exceptional, compelling, mitigating circumstances.

In March 2025, the Home Office issued a written clarification stating that breaches of immigration law should be disregarded where they were outside the applicant’s control, a point of particular importance for children and recognised victims of trafficking or modern slavery.

The clarification also confirmed that the February 2025 amendments did not change the existing position for children, because illegal entry is treated as being outside a child’s control.

Despite these statements, many lawyers and advocacy groups say that the guidance’s wording does not fully align with the assurances given in Parliament and in written answers, and that caseworkers still have broad discretion in how they apply the rules in individual cases.

The main legal challenges to the policy are still ongoing, and the Home Office has indicated that it will keep the guidance under review, so further clarifications or amendments may be made in future.

People who are worried about meeting the good character requirement do not have to work everything out on their own. There are a number of sources of help and advice that can support applicants through what is often a complex and changing area of law.

Specialist immigration advisers and barristers

Lawyers with experience in British nationality law can review your history, explain how the good character guidance is likely to apply, and advise on the strengths and risks of an application. They can also help you prepare detailed representations and, where appropriate, assess whether a refusal decision might be open to legal challenge, such as judicial review.

Legal aid

In some situations, particularly for judicial review proceedings that challenge a refusal decision, it may be possible to obtain legal aid, but this depends on strict financial (means) and case-strength (merits) tests, as well as on whether the case falls within the legal aid scheme. Anyone considering this should speak to a legal aid provider or specialist advice agency to check what funding, if any, is available.

Advocacy and advice organisations

Organisations such as Migrants’ Rights Network and other specialist NGOs publish accessible information on the good character rules and recent changes, run briefings and factsheets, and can sometimes refer people to trusted legal advisers or local support services.

Windrush Compensation Advocacy Support Fund

For people affected by the Windrush scandal, a dedicated government fund of £1.5 million has been set up to pay community and voluntary organisations to provide advocacy and practical help with Windrush compensation claims, including explaining the process and helping to gather evidence. This support focuses on the compensation scheme itself and does not replace independent legal representation when needed.