Man cannot be stripped of British citizenship, rules Supreme Court

14 October 2013 by

Bolivia-law-mother-earth-225x200

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al -Jedda [2013] UKSC 62 – Read judgment / press summary

In late 2007, the Secretary of State for the Home Department made an order depriving Mr Al Jedda, who had been granted British citizenship in 2000, of his citizenship, under the British Nationality Act 1981. Section 40(4) of the Act prohibits the deprivation of nationality where the effect would be to render the person stateless.

Not being a citizen of any state can have profound effects on a person’s ability to live a normal life, including being unable to obtain travel documents and facing difficulty settling and obtaining work, education and healthcare. However, the Secretary of State considered that taking away Mr Al Jedda’s nationality was conducive to the public good.

He had originally held Iraqi citizenship, but had lost this under Iraqi law when he gained British citizenship. The Court of Appeal found that, although Iraqi law of citizenship had materially changed between 2004 and 2006, Mr Al Jedda had not in fact regained his citizenship of Iraq during this time.

The Secretary of State argued that if Mr Al Jedda was not an Iraqi citizen, it was Mr Al Jedda’s failure to apply to the relevant Iraqi authorities during the period 2004-2006 to regain his Iraqi citizenship which had made him stateless, not the order removing his British citizenship. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and the Secretary of State appealed.

The Supreme Court was not persuaded that the 1981 Act permitted the Secretary of State to make an order, removing citizenship from a person, in circumstances such as these. Section 40(4), preventing people being made stateless, did not permit the government to conduct an analysis of whether the person in question could have obtained another citizenship:

In principle, at any rate, the inquiry is a straightforward exercise both for the Secretary of State and on appeal: it is whether the person holds another nationality at the date of the order.” Paragraph 32, Lord Wilson

Discussion

The legal dispute here was relatively simple: did the legislation permit the Secretary of State to deprive someone of citizenship, where they did not have another citizenship but could have acquired one? The wording of the legislation was unambiguous: if a person would become stateless upon British citizenship being revoked, then this could not be done. If Parliament had wanted to make an exception to that blanket rule, where a person had been given an opportunity to become a citizen of another state, but chose not to take it, it could have done so expressly in the legislation.

Clearly, the government had concerns about the impact of Mr Al Jedda returning to the UK on the general public, and no doubt some will criticise the decision as placing too much emphasis on the rights of the individual to the detriment of the majority. He currently resides in Turkey. But as a matter of law, the Supreme Court was obviously right not to permit a gloss to be placed upon clearly worded legislation. As for the morality of the government’s powers to remove grants of citizenship, there is a balance to be struck between competing interests, including that of the public good. But when the effect of withdrawing citizenship would render someone stateless, with all the detriments that entails, there are powerful arguments for removing the power of the government to strip a person of citizenship.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:

2 comments


  1. Andrew says:

    The last bit’s easy, David, you and I are, both sides’ costs. As ever!

  2. David Lamming says:

    Lord Wilson concluded his judgment with the following paragraph (para 34):

    34. On 20 February 2012 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued “Guidelines on Statelessness No 1”, HCR/GS/12/01, in which he addressed some of the effects of the authoritative definition of a stateless person in article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention. Para 43 of his guidelines, entitled “Temporal Issues”, has been incorporated, word for word, into the Home Office guidance on “Applications for leave to remain as a stateless person” dated 1 May 2013, referred to at para 13 above. The guidance provides:
    “3.4 … An individual’s nationality is to be assessed as at the time of determination of eligibility under the 1954 Convention. It is neither a historic nor a predictive exercise. The question to be answered is whether, at the point of making an Article 1(1) determination, an individual is a national of the country or countries in question. Therefore, if an individual is partway through a process for acquiring nationality but those procedures have not been completed, he or she cannot be considered as a national for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the 1954 Convention. Similarly, where requirements or procedures for loss, deprivation or renunciation of nationality have not been completed, the individual is still a national for the purposes of the stateless person definition.”
    The Secretary of State’s own guidance eloquently exposes the fallacy behind her appeal.

    In the light of that Home Office guidance and Lord Wilson’s comment, the Home Secretary should surely be called upon to explain why she appealed, whether she did so against legal advice, and who is bearing the costs of the appeal.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: