content
of the decisions varies only minimally, reflecting the different names and dates of birth of the Appellants, their differing family circumstances and the different dates upon which they had received their certificates of nationalisation as British citizens. 10. The Secretary of State’s decisions in all four cases noted the Appellants’ British citizenship status, their convictions and some of the observations of the sentencing judge. Each of the decisions describes the Appellants’ criminality as involving “ serious and organised offences ”. In the cases of Messrs Ahmed and Aziz, it is stated that these Appellants had “ a leading role ” in the criminality. In the cases of Messrs Khan and Rauf, the different terminology of “ collusion with others ” is employed. In the cases of the three Appellants who have children, there is a separate paragraph dedicated to this issue which we shall address at a later stage of this judgment. 11. In all four cases, the Secretary of State’s decisions contain the following passages: “ In accordance with section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981, the Secretary of State gives notice of her decision to make an order to deprive you [name] of British citizenship under section 40(2) ….
This is because the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be conducive to the public good to do so….
Having considered all relevant circumstances, the Secretary of State considers deprivation of your British citizenship to be reasonable and proportionate ….
In accord [sic] with section 40(4) …. the Secretary of State is satisfied that such an order will not make you stateless. You still hold Pakistani nationality as Pakistan Nationality law allows for a person to hold dual nationality. ” In all four cases, under the rubric “ right of appeal ”, the Secretary of State’s decisions also stated: “ You may appeal to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal against the decision to deprive you of your citizenship, under section 40A (1) ….
In the eventuality that you are deprived of your British citizenship, the Secretary of State will also give consideration to pursuing your removal or deportation from the United Kingdom. You will be receiving a separate notification if such a decision is made ….
Should any appeal in respect of the notice to deprive you of your British citizenship be dismissed, the deprivation order under section 40(2) … depriving you of your British citizenship will be served on you. ”
- Introduction
- Abdul Aziz
- Statutory Framework
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions
- content
- The Secretary of State’s Decisions Analysed
- Permission to Appeal
- GROUND 1: THE SECTION 55 ISSUE
- Khan
- Mr Khan,
- Mr Rauf,
- Mr Aziz,
- The FtT’s Approach
- context
- legal
- only
- naturalisation
- JO and Others (Section 55 Duty) Nigeria
- MK (Section 55 – Tribunal Options) Sierra Leone
- Kaur (Section 55/Public Interest Interface)
- JO Nigeria
- twofold
- MK Sierra Leone
- possibility
- Kaur
- SS (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- in the circumstances of this case
- in this decision-making context
- right
- duty
- Deliallisi
- Delliallisi
- nature
- GROUND 2: THE EU LAW ISSUE
- G1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Pham
- AB (Nigeria v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- their fathers
- future
- R (G1)
- GROUND 3: THE POLICY ISSUE
- Paragraph 2.5:
- Paragraph 2.6:
- Paragraph 2.7:
- Paragraphs 2.20 – 2.21:
- might
- serious
- serious organized crime
- policy
- R (Alconbury Developments) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions
- What is crucial is that the policy must not fetter the exercise of the discretion.
- R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ozminnos
- In Re McFarland
- GROUND 4: THE ARTICLE 8 ECHR ISSUE.
- GROUND 5: THE PART 5A NIAA 2002 ISSUE
- A Footnote
- OMNIBUS CONCLUSION
- Dated
