The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from an individual, B4, who lost British citizenship due to an assessment that he aligned himself with, and engaged in fighting with, an Al-Qaeda aligned group. B4 had appealed the deprivation decision to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), who had dismissed his appeal in November 2022.
The appellant challenged the approach taken by SIAC in reviewing the fairness of the ministerial submission recommending deprivation. The Court of Appeal found that by restricting itself to a Wednesbury review, SIAC erred in law by not deciding for itself whether the material before the Secretary of State was fair and balanced. However, in taking that decision the Court emphasised the need to give appropriate respect to the judgments of the experts involved in the decision-making process. The appeal was, however, dismissed because the Court concluded that applying Simplex, SIAC’s decision to dismiss the appeal would inevitably have been the same and SIAC’s error was therefore not material.
In rejecting the Appellant’s other grounds, the Court held that exculpatory material is not a mandatory relevant consideration for the purposes of the three categories of consideration in the exercise of a statutory power, identified in R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings[1995] 1 WLR 1037, and held that in applying a “powerful microscope” to the appeal, SIAC had applied the principle of “anxious scrutiny”.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Jonathan Glasson KC and James Stansfeld. instructed by the Government Legal Department, acted for the respondent Secretary of State.
Useful link(s)