B4 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 900
Gjelosh Kolicaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department
13 November 2023
[2023] UKUT 294 (IAC)
Upper Tribunal
The government took away the man's British citizenship because of his past crimes. A court decided that while the crime was serious, the government didn't properly consider everything before making the decision. They should have thought about his family and whether he'd commit more crimes, so the court gave him his citizenship back.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, born in Albania, was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 2007 and naturalised as a British citizen in 2009.
- •In 2018, he was convicted of conspiracy to remove criminal property from England and Wales and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.
- •In 2021, the Secretary of State deprived him of his British citizenship on the grounds of conduciveness to the public good.
- •His appeal to the First-tier Tribunal was dismissed.
- •The appellant's appeal to the Upper Tribunal challenged the decision on various grounds, including procedural unfairness and failure to exercise discretion.
- •A Probation Service report indicated a low risk of reoffending, not considered by the Secretary of State.
Legal Principles
Procedural fairness requires notification of a 'minded-to' deprive citizenship decision, unless there's a proper reason to believe the individual would frustrate the process.
UKUT-IAC 2023 294
The 'minded-to' step can be dispensed with if there's a clear and obvious risk of the individual renouncing other citizenship to become stateless.
UKUT-IAC 2023 294
Section 40 of the 1981 Act and section 40A appeals are explained in Ciceri and Chimi cases.
UKUT-IAC 2023 294
Even if the condition precedent for deprivation is met, the decision might be unlawful if the Secretary of State fails to exercise discretion or that discretion is tainted by public law error.
UKUT-IAC 2023 294
Procedural fairness requires the decision-maker to be fully informed, and shows respect for the individual affected.
R (Balajigari) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 673
A public body has a duty to carry out sufficient inquiry before making its decision (Tameside duty).
Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
In deprivation of citizenship cases, the Secretary of State is not required to consider current risk of harm as a precondition, but it is a factor that can be considered.
Pham v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2064
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the appeal.
The Secretary of State failed to exercise her discretion under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act after concluding that the condition precedent was met. The decision lacked any indication that a range of potentially relevant factors, such as risk of re-offending and the impact on the appellant's family, were considered.
Similar Cases
Hafiz Aman Ullah v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2024] EWCA Civ 201
Reine Chimi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKUT 115 (IAC)
R3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWCA Civ 169
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Betim Onuzi
[2024] UKUT 144 (IAC)