Antoine Lucas Roehrig, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 240
Indran Murugason, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
16 November 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1336
Court of Appeal
This case was about whether someone had the right to live in the UK, which would also give them UK citizenship. The judges decided the law meant that the right to live here only applies if the person or their parents obtained UK citizenship through birth, adoption, or naturalization in the UK, or UK registration. It didn't matter that the law wasn't perfectly clear; the judges used the general meaning and purpose to make their decision.
Key Facts
- •Indran Murugason appealed a decision denying him British citizenship.
- •His claim rested on whether he had a right of abode in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971, which would grant him British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981.
- •The dispute centered on the interpretation of section 2(1)(b)(i) of the 1971 Act, specifically whether the phrase 'in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands' applies only to 'registration' or to all four preceding options ('birth, adoption, naturalisation, or registration').
- •Murugason's father was born in Penang, a British colony, and acquired UK citizenship under the 1948 Act.
- •Murugason was born in 1972 and obtained citizenship by descent from his father.
- •The Secretary of State argued that the qualifying words applied to all four options; Murugason contended they only applied to 'registration'.
Legal Principles
Modern approach to statutory interpretation: Courts seek the meaning of the words used by Parliament, considering the context of the section, the statute as a whole, and the legislative purpose.
R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3
Statutory interpretation requires identifying the meaning of words within their particular context.
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Ex p Spath Holme Ltd [2001] AC 349
The absence of an Oxford comma doesn't automatically dictate meaning; the natural meaning of the subsection should be considered.
This case
Reference to Hansard is only appropriate if the legislation is ambiguous, obscure or leads to absurdity; the three conditions set out in Pepper v Hart must be met.
R (O) v SSHD [2022] UKSC 3
Interpretation should be consistent with the clear purpose of the legislation.
This case
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Deputy High Court Judge's decision, finding that the qualifying words 'in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands' applied to all four options (birth, adoption, naturalisation, or registration) in section 2(1)(b)(i) of the 1971 Act. The Court's interpretation aligned with the Act's purpose of restricting the right of abode to those with a close connection to the UK and was supported by the language of the Act itself and prior case law.
Similar Cases
OBN (a minor), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 1833 (Admin)
Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 201
Moynul Islam, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWHC 1838 (Admin)
R3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 169