Jedda
[2013] UKSC 62, the Supreme Court was not disposed to say more than that the use of the word “ satisfied” in section 40(2) and (3) “may afford some slight significance”, although the Court found it difficult to articulate what that significance might be (Lord Wilson at paragraph 30). We consider the T ribunal is in a position to take its own view of whether the requirements of subsection (3) are satisfied. If they are, then the points made in paragraph 43 above will apply in this class of case also. The Tribunal will be required to place significant weight on the fact that the Secretary of State has decided , in the public interest, that a person who has employed deception etc to obtain British citizenship should be deprived of that status . Where statelessness is not in issue, it is likely to be only in a rare case that the ECHR or some very compelling feature will require the Tribunal to allow the appeal.
- Introduction
- The appellant’s appeal
- rinciples
- The appellant’s grounds of challenge
- rzada
- Deliallisi
- Pirzada
- Deprivation of
- itizenship
- Deliallis
- Arusha & Demushi
- Bartlam
- Lord
- Secretary of State for the Home Departmen
- the Home Department
- Deliallisi (British citizen: deprivation appeal: scope)
- Jedda
- (c) Summary
- Next steps