B4 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 900
R3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
17 February 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 169
Court of Appeal
A man lost his British citizenship because the government said it was for public safety. He tried to appeal, saying it wasn't fair. The court decided he wasn't in the UK when the decision happened, so the rules about fairness didn't apply. They also said his arguments weren't strong enough, so his appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •On 30 May 2013, the Appellant ('A') travelled to Turkey and then Syria without a return ticket.
- •On 24 May 2017, the Secretary of State decided to deprive A of his British citizenship due to his alleged alignment with an Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria.
- •A appealed to SIAC, which dismissed his appeal and refused his application to amend his grounds of appeal.
- •A appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging SIAC's refusal to allow amendment (Decision 2) and the dismissal of his appeal (Decision 3).
- •A's main argument was that the deprivation decision was arbitrary and not in accordance with the law (the 'Gillan ground').
- •A was a dual British and Pakistani national, living in Turkey at the time of the appeal.
Legal Principles
Deprivation of British citizenship is permissible under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 if conducive to the public good, unless it renders the person stateless.
British Nationality Act 1981, Section 40(2), (4)
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) may be engaged in deprivation of citizenship cases, but the review is limited to arbitrariness and consequences.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
A state's jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR is primarily territorial, with exceptions for state agent control or effective control over an area.
Al-Skeini v United Kingdom
For Article 8 to apply, there must be a sufficient jurisdictional link; mere presence of family members in the UK is insufficient if the appellant is not seeking entry clearance for family reunion.
S1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Abbas v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Outcomes
Appeal against SIAC's finding that Article 8 did not apply is dismissed.
A was not within the UK's jurisdiction under Article 1 ECHR when the decision was made; even if he were, the decision did not breach Article 8.
Appeal against SIAC's refusal to allow amendment of grounds of appeal (Decision 2) is dismissed.
SIAC did not err in law by considering the merits of the proposed amendment, as the 'Gillan ground' lacked reasonable prospects of success.
Similar Cases
U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 811
Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 294 (IAC)
Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 201
Engin Yalcin v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 74