Case No. UKUT-00118-(IAC)

. Their conjoined appeals have their origins in a series of decisions made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the “ Secretary of State ”) proposing to deprive the Appellants of their British citizenship under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. The First-tier Tribunal (the “ FtT ”) dismissed the Appellants’ ensuing appeals. The Appellants appeal to the Upper Tribunal pursuant to my order granting permission to do so dated 05 August 2016. 3. As recorded in the permission order, these are four inter-related appeals in a case of some notoriety arising out of certain highly publicised prosecutions and ensuing convictions. The Appellants were convicted of various inter-related offences: the trafficking of children for sexual exploitation, rape, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children and sexual coercion. Their sentences ranged from 6 to 19 years imprisonment. The sentencing judge highlighted the scale and gravity of the offending, the protracted period involved (2008 – 2010), the ages of the victims – they were young teenagers – and the factors of callous, vicious and violent rape, humiliation and financial gain. The Appellants’ Criminality 4. On 9 May 2012 HHJ Clifton sentenced the four Appellants, together with five others, following their conviction by a jury of very grave sexual offences, undertaken in the context of a conspiracy to commit them, between the spring of 2008 and the spring of 2010. That criminal behaviour can be summarised briefly as the grooming and sexual exploitation of a number of girls in their early teens, in the area of Rochdale and Oldham. As the sentencing Judge observed, this summary risks hiding the appalling character of their behaviour. The Appellants were all many years older than their victims. In some cases, girls were raped callously and viciously and in others they were forced to have sex with paying customers. The sentencing Judge noted that some of the Appellants acted to satiate their lust, others did so for financial gain and some had both motivations. All were condemned as having treated their victims as worthless and undeserving of basic respect and dignity. Their offences were shocking, brutal and repulsive. 5. Individually the Appellants were punished as follows: (i) Shabir Ahmed was convicted of the rape of a girl of 15 on several occasions and of giving her to a young man that he referred to as his nephew who also raped her. There was a second rape conviction. He was described as the leader of the conspiracy. For the rape convictions he was sentenced to 19 and 22 years’ imprisonment respectively. For the convictions for trafficking, conspiracy and sexual assault he was sentenced to two further terms of eight years and one of six months. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. He remains incarcerated. (ii) Adil Khan was convicted of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child by penetrative sex, and of trafficking for sexual exploitation two 15 year old girls. He had sex with them both, and used violence towards one whom he coerced. For the conviction for trafficking he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment with a further term of eight years to be served concurrently for the conspiracy conviction. He has been released on licence. (iii) Qari Abdul Rauf was convicted of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child by penetrative sex and of trafficking for sexual exploitation a 15 year old girl. He had sex with that girl in his taxi, and he and others also had sex with her at a flat in Rochdale. For the convictions for trafficking he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with a further term of six years to be served concurrently for the conspiracy conviction. He has been released on licence. (iv) Abdul Aziz was convicted of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child by penetrative sex and of trafficking for sexual exploitation a 15 year old girl. He had taken over the running of the conspiracy from Shabir Ahmed and whilst he was not convicted of having sexual intercourse with a child himself, his further convictions were coercing girls into having sex with men who paid him, including the coercion of one girl into having anal sex when she was menstruating. For the trafficking convictions he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a further term of nine years to be served concurrently for the conspiracy conviction. He has been released on licence. There were other convicted offenders who are not involved in these appeals. Statutory Framework 6. Section 40 of the British Nationality Act (the “1981 Act”), under the rubric of “Deprivation of Citizenship”, provides: “(1) In this section a reference to a person's “citizenship status” is a reference to his status as— (a) a British citizen, (b) a British overseas territories citizen, (c) a British Overseas citizen, (d) a British National (Overseas), (e) a British protected person, or (f) a British subject. (2) The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. … (4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless. … (4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if— (a) the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation, (b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and (c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory. (5) Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice specifying – (a) that the Secretary of State has decided to make an order, (b) the reasons for the order, and (c) the person’s right of appeal under section 40A (1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997. (6) Where a person acquired a citizenship status by the operation of a law which applied to him because of his registration or naturalisation under an enactment having effect before commencement, the Secretary of State may by order deprive the person of the citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of— (a) fraud, (b false representation, or (c) concealment of a material fact.” The Secretary of State’s decisions were all made under section 40(2) and (5). The Secretary of State’s Decisions 7. The Appellants’ convictions were the sole impetus for the Secretary of State’s decisions made under section 40. Decisions to that end were initially made on 31 July 2015. The Appellants exercised their right of appeal under section 40A of the 1981 Act. Unusually, in the events which occurred, the Secretary of State’s decision- making process and the process of the FtT then merged to a certain extent. As this sounds on at least one of the grounds of appeal, it is necessary to outline what transpired between 31 July 2015 and the ultimate disposal of the appeals by the FtT. In short: (i) The appeals having been registered, a hearing date of 22 September 2015 was arranged initially. This was then re-arranged to 28 October 2015 and, in the course of a phase of active case management, this arrangement was revised. (ii) By letter dated 28 October 2015, the Secretary of State’s representative withdrew the decisions of 31 July 2015 in the cases of Messrs Khan, Rauf and Aziz. (iii) In each of the aforementioned three cases fresh decisions, dated 02 December 2015, followed. (iv) Messrs Khan, Rauf and Aziz then lodged appeals with the FtT against the fresh decisions. Those appeals were linked to the appeal of Mr Ahmed and all four appeals were then heard together. The FtT promulgated its decisions on 07 April 2016. In each case the FtT upheld the decisions of the Secretary of State. 8. At this juncture it is convenient to record that the aforementioned three Appellants – Messrs Khan, Rauf and Aziz – are each the fathers of children aged under 18 years. This realisation was the impetus for the substitution of the original decisions by replacement decisions. This does not apply to the first Appellant, Mr Ahmed, whose children were adults at all material times. We shall elaborate on this distinction infra. 9. The format of the Secretary of State’s decisions in all four cases is identical, with the exception that in the case of the first Appellant there is (as explained above) no mention of children. The 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. ” The Secretary of State’s Decisions Analysed 12. The correct analysis of the Secretary of State’s decisions, considered in their statutory context, is in our judgment the following: (a) By the impugned decisions the Secretary of State conveyed to the Appellants that an order depriving them of their British citizenship under section 40(2) of the 1981 Act was forthcoming: a classic “minded to decide” notification or notice of intention. The language of section 40(5) is “notice”. (b) Simultaneously, the Secretary of State notified an intention to defer making such an order in the event of an appeal being pursued: this was a voluntary act, not mandated by the statute. (c) The pursuit of an unsuccessful appeal would give rise to the making of a deprivation of citizenship order (and a further notification to this effect): this is portrayed as a virtual inevitability. (d) In the event of an order being made, the Secretary of State would give consideration to removing or deporting the Appellants from the United Kingdom. 13. The course adopted by the Secretary of State’s decision-making process in these cases therefore contemplates two further stages. First, the making of a formal deprivation of British Citizenship order in each case, in the event of an unsuccessful appeal. Second, further to the latter order, a removal decision or deportation order. We observe that if the second further stage is reached in any of the Appellants’ cases, it will involve all of the formalities, procedures, rights and protections which decisions of this kind entail. We shall revisit the significance of this infra . 14. Given the factual and legal context outlined above, it is unnecessary to consider the hypothetical question of whether a deprivation of citizenship order may lawfully be made in circumstances where an appeal to the tribunal against a “notice of intention” decision is pending. Permission to Appeal 15. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal has been granted to each of the Appellants on the following five grounds: (i) The Respondent’s decision was vitiated by a failure to discharge her duty under s. 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009; (ii) The First-tier Tribunal [“FtT”] failed to acknowledge the factor of EU law rights, failed to carry out a proper proportionality balancing exercise and failed to evaluate the factors specified in Articles 27 and 28 of the Charter; (iii) The FtT erred in its construction of the statutory criterion of “serious organised crime” and failed to take into account the Respondent’s policy on the issue; (iv) The FtT erred in its application of Article 8 ECHR and, specifically, failed to appreciate that the Article 8 claim focused on the deprivation of citizenship, not proposed deportation; (v) The FtT erred in law in applying Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. We shall address each of the permitted grounds of appeal seriatim. GROUND 1: THE SECTION 55 ISSUE 16. As noted above, this ground of appeal does not arise in the case of the first Appellant, Mr Ahmed. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (the “ 2009 Act ”) provides: “(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that— (a) the functions mentioned in subsection (2) are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom; and (b) any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements which are made by the Secretary of State and relate to the discharge of a function mentioned in subsection (2) are provided having regard to that need. (2) The functions referred to in subsection (1) are— (a) any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; (b) any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer; (c) any general customs function of the Secretary of State; (d) any customs function conferred on a designated customs official. (3) A person exercising any of those functions must, in exercising the function, have regard to any guidance given to the person by the Secretary of State for the purpose of subsection (1).” [Our emphasis] It is common case that section 55 applied to the decisions of the Secretary of State under challenge. 17. At this stage we revisit the chronology of the Secretary of State’s decision-making: see especially [6] – [8] above. It is common case that the Secretary of State’s decisions concerning the three Appellants (second, third and fourth) who have children aged under 18 years were withdrawn and substituted to address the lacuna that the section 55 duty had not been considered in the original decisions. The substituted decisions sought to rectify this omission. Of the second, third and fourth Appellants the substituted (operative) decisions all contain a passage beginning with an acknowledgement of the Secretary of State’s awareness that the Appellant concerned either has British citizen children whose ages are noted (in two cases) or that the relevant Appellant has “ dependents under 18 who are British citizens ” (the Khan case). In all three cases, this passage continues: “ Deprivation of your citizenship (as distinct from deportation) will not, in itself, have a significant effect on the best interests of your children. It will neither impact on their or your wife’s status in the United Kingdom, nor is there any evidence that it will impact on their education, housing, financial support or contact with you. The Secretary of State acknowledges that deprivation may have an emotional impact on your children. However, having taken into account the best interests of your children as a primary consideration in discharge of her section 55 duty, the Secretary of State considers that the public interest in depriving you of citizenship clearly outweighs any interest your children might have in your remaining a British citizen. British citizenship is a privilege that confers particular entitlements and benefits, including the right to a British passport and the right to vote in general elections. It is not in the public interest that individuals who engage in serious and/or organised crime, which constitutes a flagrant abuse of British values, enjoy those entitlements and benefits … Having considered all relevant circumstances, the Secretary of State considers deprivation of your British citizenship to be reasonable and proportionate. ” The essential question which arises in these appeals is whether, within the compass of the grant of permission to appeal, these passages in the decisions disclose any material error of law on the part of the Secretary of State’s decision maker. 18. During the FtT phase the initial case management directions notified the parties of a forthcoming case management review hearing (“CMR”) and included the following : “At least three days before the CMR all parties shall file and serve a skeleton argument addressing the relevance of section 55 of the 2009 Act to each case …” This prompted a letter from the Secretary of State’s representative stating : “…. The Secretary of State, following submission made by the legal representatives for the above named [the three Appellants concerned], has decided to reconsider the decisions in accordance with the Secretary of State’s obligations under section 55 …. Therefore the Secretary of State has decided to withdraw the decisions ….” It is common case that the withdrawal of the Secretary of State’s initial decisions and their substitution by new decisions were precipitated by the grounds of appeal and written representations made on behalf of the three Appellants concerned in response to the FtT’s directions. These representations addressed the issue of the impact of the impugned decisions on the welfare of the children concerned. 19. We turn to examine the case made to the FtT on this issue by these three Appellants. In summary: (a) In the case of the first Appellant, Mr Khan, who was unrepresented, there is no indication that any witness statement or other documentary evidence was presented. The Tribunal’s decision records that this Appellant gave evidence and notes the following (referring to one of the members of the panel of three Judges): “ Judge Baird asked the Appellant some questions to ascertain the circumstances of him and his family. The Appellant confirmed that he is still on licence, the terms of which prohibit him from going to Rochdale. He lives in Swinton, Manchester. He is working part time in a carpet shop. His wife is still living in Rochdale. He has one son aged 7 who is living with his mother in a council property. He does not see his child. He explained that this was because the social worker will not allow it. He has no telephone contact either. He has cousins, nephews and his wife’s family in the UK and he is in contact with them. His wife is a British citizen as is his son … He did see his son when he was in prison. He was asked whether his wife had said how his absence is affecting his son and he responded that the child is very upset and it is affecting his education. His wife lives on state benefits and is struggling financially so their son does not get the things that he needs. ” (b) The third Appellant, Mr Rauf, who was legally represented, made a relatively detailed witness statement which was submitted to the FtT. The Secretary of State’s decision had noted that this Appellant has five British citizen children, aged between 8 and 15 years. In his statement, this Appellant makes a bare, unparticularised reference to “ my wife and children ”. The remainder of his statement consists of much advocacy and little concrete evidence. The decision of the FtT contains the following passage: “ He told us that he has five children between the ages of 9 and 16. They went to Pakistan to see relations in April 2015. He said that none of them have any medical problems but are upset. When asked how he thought that deprivation of his British citizenship would affect them, he said that it would be a very hard life for them without him. They would be very upset. He said that this was because he looks after them financially and takes them to and from school. His wife cannot drive and she is not educated and there are no other relatives in the UK who can look after the children … he told us that all his children were in education and doing well at school. ” As appears from the following passage, this Appellant evidently did not proactively alert the FtT to the full picture: “ In subsequent re-examination it came out that in fact the Appellant is not living with his wife and children currently. He said it was a condition of his licence that he cannot go to Rochdale which is where they live. He sees them on Saturdays during the day. He confirmed therefore that he is not currently taking or collecting them from school nor is he in employment and providing for them financially … he has not worked since he was released from prison in November 2014. His licence will expire in November 2017 and he is on the Sex Offenders Register for an indefinite period. ” (c) In the case of the fourth Appellant, Mr Aziz, the Secretary of State’s decision noted that he had three British citizen children aged 5, 14 and 17 years. This Appellant was represented before the FtT. The presentation of his case included a written statement. This recounted that prior to his incarceration he was the family’s sole bread winner, working as a taxi driver. His children were in full time education. The family was now wholly dependent upon state benefits. His wife and children had visited him during his imprisonment. Following his release from prison in December 2015 any contact with his children had been supervised, involving an appointed Social Services supervisor. His childrens’ maternal grandparents lived in the United Kingdom. He had a strong bond with his wife and children. In his evidence to the Tribunal this Appellant elaborated on his written statements and explained that (by reason of the licence conditions) he was living apart from his family, in Manchester. In evidence to the Tribunal, this Appellant’s spouse testified that all three children were “ bright in their education ”. She described the adverse impact on the family arising out of her husband’s imprisonment and the continuing separation. Similar evidence, both written and oral, was given by the oldest child of the family, a son aged 17. He confirmed the role of his maternal grandparents in their lives. This Appellant’s assertion in examination in chief that he looked after his children financially and accompanied them to and from school, without illumination or elaboration, was plainly misleading. The FtT’s Approach 20. We now turn to consider how the FtT dealt with the best interests of the children issue in its separate decisions. In the case of Mr Khan, the FtT noted the submission on behalf of the Secretary of State relating to section 55 of the 2009 Act and reproduced in full the relevant passage in the Secretary of State’s decision: [17] supra . The approach espoused by the FtT was that since the removal or deportation of the Appellant was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of depriving him of his British citizenship, Article 8 ECHR must be considered. The word “ deportation ” features repeatedly in the passages which follow. The FtT reasoned: “ He is currently not having contact with his child. His wife has looked after the child all the time he has been in prison. She has also been deprived of her husband and his income for that period of time …. There was no evidence of the effect his separation from the child may have had on the child … Given the seriousness of the crimes committed by the Appellant, very considerable weight must be given to the public interest in his removal. The family circumstances of this Appellant, even put at their highest, which would include him being able to resume living with his wife and child, do not render his removal, in all the circumstances, disproportionate. ” 21. In the case of the third Appellant, Mr Rauf, the FtT noted the representative’s argument that the Secretary of State had not adequately assessed the best interests of the children. The approach adopted by the Tribunal was essentially the same as in Mr Khan’s case, viz to ask whether removal or deportation would be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of depriving this Appellant of his British citizenship, supplying an affirmative answer. The FtT then stated: “ The second alleged impropriety is that the Secretary of State did not make adequate or any enquiries as to where the best interests of the children lie and the Appellant is thus unable to answer that. However, the Secretary of State has clearly taken the best interests of the children at their highest and said at paragraph 7 of the Notice that the public interest outweighed the best interests of the children. In other words, even if the best interests of the children required the Appellant to remain a British citizen and thereafter in the UK, those interests are outweighed by the public interest because of the gravity of his offending behaviour …. We find that being the case the Secretary of State has adequately dealt with the best interests of the children and fulfilled her obligations under section 55 …. Conversely, the Appellant has adduced no evidence whatsoever about the children’s best interests. We have been provided with no evidence from their GP, school or even their mother that they will suffer by either the Appellant losing his British citizenship or being removed from the UK. ” Next the FtT reasoned that to deprive this Appellant of his citizenship would not breach any person’s Article 8 rights: “ It would not prevent the Appellant from being with and caring for his children if permitted to do so. It would be open to him to seek leave to remain in the UK on the basis of his family life. Furthermore, given the grave nature of the offending and the fact that it was an organized crime perpetrated with others over a sustained period, we find the decision to deprive the Appellant of his British citizenship entirely appropriate. The consequences of him no longer being a British citizen on either himself or his family members is not such as to outweigh the public interest in the deprivation. ” In a later passage, the FtT stated: “ The Appellant claims that his wife cannot look after the children without him. However, the fact is she has done so for the three years since his arrest and since his release. Again apart from the Appellant’s bare assertion, there was not a shred of evidence to support this and most strikingly nothing from his wife … The Appellant claims that his children have been badly affected by their separation from the Appellant, again not a shred of evidence to that effect …. We have been provided with no evidence that the Appellant even has a genuine and subsisting relationship with either his wife or his children. ” The FtT’s ultimate conclusion was that Article 8 rights did not outweigh the public interest in deportation . 22. In the case of the fourth Appellant, Mr Aziz, the FtT noted the reliance of the Secretary of State’s representative on the relevant passage in the substituted decision and reproduced this in its entirety: see [17] supra . Having done so, the approach adopted was essentially the same as in the other two cases: see [18] and 19] above. Thus, the Article 8 issues canvassed were viewed from the perspective that the removal or deportation of this Appellant from the United Kingdom was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of depriving him of his British citizenship. As in the other two appeals, the FtT reasoned that the deportation of this Appellant would clearly interfere with family life and continued: “ We accept that he has a family life with his wife and children although this is at the moment severely restricted with only supervised contact with his children being allowed …. We take into account that under the terms of his licence, the Appellant cannot go to Rochdale. His wife and children had to live without him when he was in prison though we do accept and take into account that they did have some contact with him by visiting him. We have considered the best interests of his children as we are required to do. Clearly the children have suffered some unpleasantness at the hands of other people due to the crimes committed by their father … Despite that, they do not want their father to have to go to Pakistan. His absence has created financial difficulties for the whole family … We do not accept the evidence of the Appellant’s wife about the problems her youngest child had when his father went to prison. He was just a baby and at one year old would be unlikely to be affected as she claims. We would also say that we find it highly unlikely that it is the case that the Appellant’s wife is the only person who can look after her parents. She has siblings in the UK and there is in any event no evidence of the level of care required. ” The FtT then expressed the following omnibus conclusion: “ Having considered all the evidence in the round, we find that there are no compelling circumstances over and above those described in paragraphs 399 and 399A of the Immigration Rules that would outweigh the public interest in deportation. Indeed, we would go so far as to say that the crime being an organised and sustained series of sexual assaults on children is so serious that the family circumstances of this Appellant come nowhere close to outweighing the public interest in deportation . ” [Emphasis supplied.] Adding: “ We accept that the best interests of children in general lie in being with both parents but in all the circumstances of this case ….. those interests are outweighed by the public interest and would not render any decision to remove the Appellant disproportionate. We make this finding having considered the family circumstances at their highest, which would include the Appellant being able to resume living with his wife and children. We have no hesitation in finding that the deprivation of citizenship itself does not breach his right to a family and private life as protected by Article 8. ” 23. We summarize the rival contentions of the parties’ representatives on this issue thus. Mr Jafferji, representing the second to fourth Appellants, submitted that the Secretary of State had committed the “ primary and basic flaw ” in confining her consideration to the immediate consequences of depriving his clients of British citizenship and disregarding the reasonably foreseeable consequences of this measure. His second submission was that the Secretary of State had failed in her duty to make enquiries concerning the children and to obtain relevant information, such as social services input, relating to, the affected children. In written form, Mr Jafferji formulated this submission thus: “ No enquiries were made in these appeals. In light of the publicity, notoriety and nature of the crimes committed by the Appellants, there would plainly have been a grave impact upon the children … despite the obvious need for full and proper information with respect to the impact upon the children, the Respondent did not make any enquiries …. ” It was argued that the FtT, in failing to identify these legal defects in the Secretary of State’s decisions, had erred in law. 24. The main submission of Ms McGahey QC and Mr Mandalia on behalf of the Secretary of State was that having regard to the context , upon which some emphasis was placed, the Secretary of State’s duty was limited to considering the extent to which the impugned decisions impacted upon the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the affected children. Second, the Tribunal was reminded of the terms in which the children’s interests were considered in the substituted decisions. Third, we were reminded of the manner in which these issues were explored by the FtT in its successive decisions. Fourth, it was submitted, in terms, that the Appellants’ cases under the aegis of this ground of appeal were really advanced in a vacuum: they neither laid before the Secretary of State or the FtT evidence bearing on the childrens’ best interests nor made relevant representations. Nor do they point to the existence of any such evidence at this stage 25. We consider that the content of the duty owed by the Secretary of State under section 55(1) of the 2009 Act in the cases of the second to fourth Appellants must be measured by reference to the context. In this respect, the context to which the decisions underlying these conjoined appeals belongs had two basic ingredients, the first factual, and the second legal. The factual dimension of the context is rehearsed above. There follows the legal context. The Legal Context 26. The first ingredient in the legal context is that each of the Appellants, by virtue of naturalisation, enjoys the status of British citizens. A comprehensive code for the acquisition and loss of British nationality (now British citizenship) has been devised by Parliament since the first statutory intervention of note, namely the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which repealed the Naturalisation Act 1870. Following the Commonwealth Legal Conference held in London in 1947, the British Nationality Act 1948 sought to give effect to the principles of the Canadian Citizenship Act 1946 for general application throughout the Commonwealth. It reflected the principle that people of each of the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth had a particular status as citizens of their own country and a common status as members of the Commonwealth family. A limited power to control the immigration of Commonwealth citizens into the United Kingdom was introduced via the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. In due course the Immigration Act 1971 and the 1981 Act were introduced. 27. Throughout history, British subjects were free at common law and/or by statute to enter the United Kingdom and reside there. This is the fundamental right conferred by the status of British citizenship. Under the 1981 Act, British citizenship is the only status which confers a legal right to live in the United Kingdom and to come and go at will. The possibility of acquiring this status by naturalisation has long been recognised by statue (see in particular the 1948 Act) and is now governed by section 6 of and Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981. The effect of modern British nationality laws is that loss of the right of abode in the United Kingdom is the main consequence of depriving a person of British citizenship. The affected subject also suffers the loss of associated and consequential rights, duties and opportunities – in particular voting, standing for election, jury service, military service, eligibility for appointment to the Civil Service and access to state benefits, state financed healthcare and state sponsored education. Fundamentally, the relationship between the individual and the State, which lies at the heart of citizenship and nationality, is extinguished. 28. Interestingly, as a perusal of the 1948 and 1981 statutes indicates, successive Governments have declined to define comprehensively the rights attaching to British citizenship through the vehicle of legislation. The Government perspective on the essential elements of citizenship was expressed in the Green Paper “The Governance of Britain” (CM7170) published in July 2007, which focuses (inter alia) on the concepts of membership of the community, national identity, common British values and the constitution. Another report of note in this context is “The Path to Citizenship: Our Common Bond”, which forms part of the background to the 2009 Act. 29. The second main ingredient in the legal context is the decision-making structure devised by the 1981 Act. We have analysed this in [11] – [12] above. In short, decisions of the kind under challenge in these appeals have the status of a notice of intention, under section 40(5) of the 1981 Act, to make a deprivation of citizenship order. If the decision under section 40 (the same structure applies to both section 40(2) and section 40(3)) is not challenged by appeal to the tribunal, the next stage contemplated is a formal order by the Secretary of State. The unexpressed (though perhaps implied) premise is that no deprivation order will be made while an appeal to the tribunal remains undetermined. 30. Loss of British citizenship occurs at the second, rather than the first, of the aforementioned stages. A deprivation of citizenship order – emphatically – does not equate to either removal or deportation of the affected subject from the United Kingdom. Both removal and deportation are governed by other statutory regimes entailing specified procedures, requirements and rights. Removal and deportation decisions may in certain circumstances be challenged by appeal or judicial review proceedings. British citizens are immune from removal and deportation action. Thus they must be deprived of their British citizenship status before either of these courses can be pursued. 31. Accordingly, neither a decision (or notice of intention) to make a deprivation order (these cases) nor a deprivation order itself has the immediate or direct consequence of the affected subject’s removal or deportation from the United Kingdom. It is, of course, reasonable to assume that a notice of intention to make a deprivation of citizenship order will normally be given as a prelude to a deprivation order and a later decision to remove or deport the affected person from the United Kingdom. But the initial decision is correctly to be viewed as a first step. Future steps and stages will require the subject to be actively involved and, in particular, will generate the Secretary of State’s duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to avoid conduct incompatible with protected Convention rights, will engage the common law principles of a fair decision making process, and will also trigger the constraints imposed by any applicable statutory code (for example the UK Borders Act 2007) and established principles of public law. 31. There is no shortage of judicial learning and guidance relating to section 55 of the 2009 Act, which forms the next component of the legal context. The leading decisions, which emanate from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, were reviewed by this Tribunal in