Case No. UKUT-00118-(IAC)

[2004] UKHL 17 at [24]. 67. The heavy emphasis on policies which this ground of appeal involves raises the risk of distracting from the ultimate question. That question, giving precedence to the primary legislation, is whether the Secretary of State’s conclusion that to deprive the Appellants of their British citizenship status is conducive to the public good was one that was reasonably open to her. This is not a question of fact. Rather, as the word “ satisfied ” indicates, it is a matter of evaluative judgment on the part of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, neither of the policies can have the effect of diluting, restricting or modifying the statutory language. The criterion of “ conducive to the public good ” constitutes the ultimate touchstone. There is no challenge based on the disregard of material facts or factors or the intrusion of something alien. Nor is there any irrationality challenge – and any such challenge would in our judgment be doomed to fail in any event. Viewed through this prism, and taking all of the foregoing into account, we consider that the Secretary of State’s decisions withstand this ground of challenge. 68. We further consider that the Secretary of State’s evaluative assessment that the Appellants’ offending fell within the embrace of this policy is uncontaminated by any error of law. Accordingly, neither the Secretary of State’s decision nor the decisions of the FtT can be impugned on this ground.