U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 811
B4 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
31 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 900
Court of Appeal
The government took away a man's British citizenship because they said it was for national security. A court reviewed the decision, finding some minor errors but saying the government's decision was still correct. The case clarifies the rules about how courts check decisions that involve national security and removing someone's citizenship, emphasizing the need for fairness while respecting the government's expertise in these matters.
Key Facts
- •The Appellant, B4, was deprived of his British citizenship by the Secretary of State under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
- •The deprivation was based on the assertion that it was conducive to the public good due to B4's alleged travel to Syria and alignment with an Al-Qaeda-aligned group.
- •B4 appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which dismissed the appeal.
- •B4 appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising several grounds.
- •The case involved closed material due to national security concerns.
Legal Principles
SIAC's jurisdiction is appellate, not supervisory. It can only consider whether the Secretary of State acted in a way no reasonable decision-maker could have, considered irrelevant matters, disregarded relevant ones, or erred in law.
Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 152
In national security cases, SIAC accords deference to the Secretary of State's assessment, but scrutinizes the evidence with a 'powerful microscope'.
Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 152
Relevant considerations in exercising statutory powers include mandatory, prohibited, and permissible considerations. The Wednesbury unreasonableness test applies to permissible considerations – a consideration must be 'obviously material' to justify interference.
R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings [1995] 1 WLR 1037
Procedural fairness is a question for the court to determine, not subject to Wednesbury review.
R (Osborn) v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61
Anxious scrutiny applies when an administrative decision may put an applicant's life at risk, requiring careful consideration of all factors.
Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1987] AC 514
Deprivation of citizenship is a 'radical step', requiring a correspondingly strict standard of review.
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 19
Outcomes
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
The Court found that while SIAC erred in its approach to procedural fairness (applying Wednesbury instead of an independent assessment), the error was not material. The Court also found that the advice to the Secretary of State was fair and balanced, and that SIAC applied the necessary level of scrutiny.
Similar Cases
R3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 169
Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 294 (IAC)
Rights & Security International v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 296 (GRC)
Reine Chimi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 115 (IAC)