The Weekly Round-Up: Deprivations of citizenship, the state of the union and prison over Pride and Prejudice

24 January 2022 by

Eleanor Roosevelt UDHR.jpg

In the news:

On Friday, the Guardian reported on the earlier quantitative analysis relating to deprivations of British citizenship. While it has been known and reported upon for some time, the analysis demonstrates a continued trend of increased deprivations, with a significant peak in 2017, when the number of people whose citizenship was removed soared by 600%.

Protected by Article 15 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights following the Second World War, the right to a nationality was described by Hannah Arendt as the very ‘right to have rights’.  Nationality underpins individuals’ belonging to states, which can be the only true guarantors of individual self-governance through the medium of inalienable rights.

Prior to 2006, the power to remove citizenship had not been used since 1973. Now, strengthened by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, which allowed the UK government to order deprivation of citizenship against its citizens where it believes it is ‘conducive to the public good’, 175 people have had their citizenship removed on national security grounds, and 286 due to fraud (even though the latter power relating to fraud was already enshrined in s.40 of the British Nationality Act 1981). The additional power to render individuals stateless was introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, under which the Secretary of State may remove citizenship where she has reasonable grounds for believing that the person deprived ‘is able’ to become a national of another country. This was most visibly achieved in the case of Shamima Begum, considered extensively on the UK Human Rights Blog.

The latest figures demonstrate the government’s continued commitment to using powers which are now sought to be expanded yet further by the Nationality and Borders Bill. Clause 9 of the new Bill will remove even the right of an individual to have notice of the government’s decision to remove their citizenship.

In other news:

  • The BBC reported on Friday that the average delays to criminal prosecutions has hit a new record of 708 days. The backlog of criminal cases remains around 60,000. The rights of defendants and victims to swift justice and trial within a reasonable time in the UK remains tenuous.
  • Ben John, the 22-year-old who was convicted of ‘possessing a record likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’ after he was found with a copy of the Anarchist’s Cookbook and was (unconventionally) sentenced to read Jane Austen, Shakespeare and other works of literary canon, has had his suspended sentence overturned by the Court of Appeal on Wednesday. After the court heard how he had continued to ‘like’ far-right material on the internet after his sentence, John will now face time in prison. On the same day, a 14-year-old boy became the youngest person in the UK to be convicted on terror charges.

In the courts:

  • In Tindall & Anor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 25, the Court of Appeal confirmed that public bodies would not be liable in tort for ‘merely acting ineffectually’. While the public may expect authorities to intervene in a dangerous situation, their mere arrival or presence will not render them liable for negligence where members of the public are harmed by things that are not their fault. In this case, the police left a sign and then abandoned a dangerous stretch of road after an earlier accident, shortly before a second accident resulted in the death of the Claimant. See, by contrast, Owain Thomas QC’s post on the 2018 Supreme Court decision in Darnley v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust, a case where a hospital was found to be vicariously liable for the negligent advice of a (non-medically trained) receptionist in A&E. Philip Havers QC of One Crown Office Row acted as lead counsel to the Defendant in that case.
  • On Tuesday, The High Court in ZLL, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2022] EWHC 85 (Admin) rejected the Claimant’s application for judicial review of the Government’s policy on rough-sleepers, in light of the ‘Everyone In’ initiative during the covid pandemic. After being rejected by Camden LBC which judged the Claimant not to meet its risk-based requirements for being taken in. Stuart-Smith LJ determined in essence that the Government’s publications in relation to the ‘Everyone In’ initiative did not amount to open-ended, prescriptive, public-policy guidance and so there was no conflict between an authority’s ‘published policy’ and an unpublished policy.

On the UKHRB:

  • crashwigley discusses the Welsh government’s devolved approach to covid regulations in relation to police powers.
  • 1COR’s Henry Tufnell analyses the dismissal of the appeal against the lawfulness of the Self-Employment Support Scheme, which was accused of discrimination against self-employed mothers who had taken maternity leave shortly before the introduction of the scheme, which purportedly affected the calculation of their income support during the coronavirus pandemic.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: