New bill gives powers to remove British citizenship without notice

[najaB]

Interesting story in the Guardian, a British-born man of Bangladeshi descent was stripped of his citizenship by the home office who described him as "an Islamist extremist who had previously sought to travel abroad to participate in terrorism-related activity" yet they never brought any specific charges against him, or even told him exactly what it was he was alleged to have done:

“The allegation against me is so vague that it even suggests that I only tried to travel to some unknown destination to take part in an unspecified activity related to terrorism.

“How on earth do you defend yourself against an allegation like that, especially when the government relies on secret evidence? The disclosure my solicitors received was almost entirely redacted so I have no idea what the government is referring to.

Fortunately, after nearly five years he now has his citizenship back and is no longer stateless, but it serves as a worrying portent of what may happen if this bill passes through parliament unmodified.

 

[XAM2175]

Fortunately, after nearly five years he now has his citizenship back and is no longer stateless, but it serves as a worrying portent of what may happen if this bill passes through parliament unmodified.

It's not quite sorted yet, though; his daughter, who was born while he was stateless, is still being denied the British citizenship that she'd unquestionably be entitled to had the revocation not occurred - meaning the Home Office don't even accept that the revocation was wrong in the first place.

 

[najaB]

It's not quite sorted yet, though; his daughter, who was born while he was stateless, is still being denied the British citizenship that she'd unquestionably be entitled to had the revocation not occurred - meaning the Home Office don't even accept that the revocation was wrong in the first place.

That sucks. Though, pedantically, even if they admitted that it was a mistake they would need to retroactively undo the action since he wasn't a citizen when she was born.

 

[XAM2175]

That sucks. Though, pedantically, even if they admitted that it was a mistake they would need to retroactively undo the action since he wasn't a citizen when she was born.

Yes. In my mind that's the absolute minimum the Home Office should have done within minutes of the court's decision being handed down.

 

[najaB]

Looks like the Home Office isn't even waiting until the law changes!

The court of appeal has ruled that the UK government acted unlawfully when it stripped a British woman of her citizenship without telling her.

By a two to one majority, the justices upheld a high court ruling that the failure to notify the woman, known as D4, that her citizenship had been removed until the government was contacted by her lawyers nullified the decision.

The home secretary had argued that notification had been given to D4, who has been detained in the Roj camp in Syria since January 2019, by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.

UK unlawfully stripped woman of citizenship without telling her – court

Ruling against Home Office comes as government tries to remove requirement to give notice in some circumstances

www.theguardian.com

 

[domcoop7]

Looks like the Home Office isn't even waiting until the law changes!

Not quite. This is a Court of Appeal decision, after the Home Office lost judicial review at the High Court in July and the government tried to appeal against it. The decision of the High Court was based on a case from July 2019 and it's almost certain that it is because of this case (and the fact the Government realised they were on a sticky wicket) that the new bill has been passed. There's no point having a law saying we can deprive you of citizenship if you go off to fight with terrorists, but it will only apply if you go off to fight with terrorists and employ a receptionist first to accept postal notices on your behalf whilst you are out of the country!

Interestingly, the Master of the Rolls (considered the head of the Civil Justice system in England and Wales and one of the most senior judges) found in favour of the Government, but was outvoted by two other judges in the Court of Appeal. It may well go to the Supreme Court, and given the Master of the Rolls's view, there's a good chance the Government may still win, making the new bill irrelevant.

For anyone interested, the Master of the Rolls's view was based on the fact that the Labour Government in 2003 passed regulations saying you could serve papers on somebody to deprive them of citizenship by sending them to their last recorded address even if you know the person doesn't live there. Those rules also apply to other types of immigration case, and nobody has ever challenged them before or considered they were unlawful, so (in his view) it's a bit odd that they are unlawful only now and only for one specific type of immigration case (deprivation of citizenship). And rules similar (but not identical) to those were in effect since 1914!

Not pointed out in the Guardian article is that both judges who found against the Government stated that they felt the Government had good arguments and that the law should be changed (as indeed the new Bill is proposing). [See Lady Justice Whipple, who said "Secondly, I accept that there may be cases where the Home Secretary is simply not able to give notice consistently with section 40(5) as I construe it – because the person's whereabouts is unknown, they are over 18, and have no representative known to the Home Secretary – and I further accept that there might well be a compelling reason to dispense with the notice requirement in such a case, made stronger in circumstances where the individual in question has deliberately avoided the attention of the authorities and made detection of their whereabouts difficult." and Lord Justice Baker who said "There may be good policy reasons for empowering the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice" (my emphasis in both cases)]

Also for all the hysterical "people will lose their citizenship and never be told" and "people will lose their right to appeal" statements that have been made, the fact that this case happened, the person in question did find out, and did have a right to appeal (and in fact won) is proof that such statements are false.