U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department

14 July 2023

[2023] EWCA Civ 811

Court of Appeal

A woman appealed a decision to take away her British citizenship because she was considered a national security risk. The court decided that the appeals court (SIAC) had done a good job, even if it could have been clearer on a few points. The woman's citizenship remained taken away because SIAC made sure the government's reasons were fair, even though they considered other information too. It's complicated because national security is a huge deal, and they have to be careful about who they trust.

Key Facts

•Appeal concerns SIAC's functions when hearing appeals against decisions to deprive British citizens of nationality on national security grounds.
•U3 appealed SIAC's dismissal of appeals against decisions to deprive her of citizenship and refuse entry clearance.
•U3 argued SIAC took too narrow a view of its powers, limiting itself to whether the Secretary of State made a public law error.
•The Secretary of State defended SIAC's approach.
•The appeal involved issues of law concerning SIAC's powers under sections 2 and 2B of the 1997 Act.
•Key case law: *Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman* and *Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department*.

Legal Principles

Distinction between appeal and judicial review: Appeals entail a review of all aspects, while judicial review challenges legality or procedure.

[2017] UKSC 71; [2017] 1 WLR (General Medical Council v Michalak)

SIAC's role in section 2B appeals (as per Begum): SIAC reviews the Secretary of State's exercise of discretion, setting it aside only where there's a public law error. SIAC cannot substitute its judgment for the executive's, especially regarding future risk assessments. However, SIAC must make its own assessment of compliance with the ECHR.

[2021] UKSC 7; [2022] AC 765 (Begum)

In national security cases, the Secretary of State's assessment is given significant weight. SIAC cannot simply substitute its own judgment but can intervene if the assessment lacks a factual basis or is irrational.

[2001] UKHL 29; [2003] 1 AC 153 (Rehman)

SIAC can consider evidence not before the Secretary of State, but this is limited to evidence illuminating events before the decision. SIAC can identify omissions or material the Secretary of State should have considered.

[2023] EWCA Civ 811 (U3)

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

SIAC did not materially err in law. While SIAC's functions are broader than the Secretary of State submitted, and differ from SIAC's initial understanding, SIAC correctly applied the legal principles established in *Rehman* and *Begum*. SIAC appropriately considered evidence and made findings of fact within the constraints set by precedent, without improperly substituting its judgment for the Secretary of State's on national security assessments.

U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

B4 v Secretary of State for the Home Department

R3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department

Rights & Security International v Information Commissioner & Anor