Case No. UKUT-00085-(IAC)

8. The a ppellant appealed under s ection 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“The 1981 Act”) . His grounds of appeal contended that he had not obtained British citizenship fraudulently. He also submitted that the respondent had failed to carry out an assessment of the best interests of his three children, as required by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Nationality Act 2009. 9. In handwritten representations to the respondent , the appellant said that he had provided “services to the UK government ” and that he “ was very young at the time of these misdeeds and just had a hard life… at the tim e of these identity problems I had no status in the UK and it was hard to live without documentation and all that led to me trying to find a way to live and survive in the UK . I am sorry I had to do things the wrong wa y. I am older now and a parent” . 10. The appellant’s appeal in the First-tier Tribunal was originally due to be heard on 19 June 2017. A week earlier, however, the appellant’s solicitors requested an adjournment. The case was said by them to be of a “sensitive nature which involves national security”. A key witness was a police officer , initial c ontact with whom had been made by the solicitors only on 9 June 2017. 11. The appeal was relisted for 7 August 2017. On 3 August, the solicitors requested a further adjournment. They said they remained in the same positio n as they had been on 12 June a nd that :- “ We have been unable to take the statement from the police officer and we are yet to have a conference with the Home Office which we were informed was due to the presenting officer dealing with the case being on leave. Unfortunately, these are [matters] that [need] to be dealt with, from the information received our client assisted the C rown and information that is classified has found its way in the decision from the respondent. We believe it is in the interests of justice, the C rown and our client as well as his minor children to have 3-4 months adjournment with a view to resolving this before it is dealt within the courts”. 12. At the hearing before the First-tier Tribunal judge on 7 August, Mr Siaw, a solicitor appearing for the appellant , re newed the adjournment application. He told the judge that the appellant “had worked as a police informant and had infiltrated drug gangs in America . The appellant had been told to obtain false identities by his handler”. 13. Faced with this, the judge requested the presenting officer to take instructions from a senior case worker. Having done so, the presenting officer objected to any further adjournment. 14. The judge refused to adjourn. He noted that almost two years had passed since the appellant had originally been notified that the respondent was considering depriving him of his British citizenship. The judge also noted that the appellant’s original responses were inconsistent with his later representations that he had been fully aware of his false identities but employed them in order to live in the United Kingdom. The judge was “not confident that there was a realistic prospect of the appellant obtaining any evidence from a police officer which would assist his case. Accordingly, I refuse d the application for an adjournment”. 15. Having been made aware of the judge’s decision to proceed , Mr S ia w said he had no submissions to make. H e expressed his view that the hearing should not go ahead, in the interests of justice. Everything the appellant had done “was because he was working for the Metropolitan Police”. C.