The appellant, a Nigerian national, challenged a decision to make a deprivation of citizenship order under the British Nationality Act 1981, s 40(2). The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) held that the evidence provided strong support for the conclusion that the appellant was a danger to the national security of the UK. SIAC rejected the argument that a preventive or precautionary approach was not appropriate and that there must be “real, direct and immediate threat”. SIAC said that the threat must be “real” but not “direct and immediate” although on the basis of the OPEN and CLOSED evidence it was in fact satisfied that the appellant would indeed pose a direct and immediate threat to the national security of the United Kingdom. SIAC was satisfied that the threat he posed could not be addressed by subjecting the appellant to strict surveillance and/or measures under the TPIM Act 2011.
SIAC was satisfied the appellant, his wife and children were not within the jurisdiction of the ECHR when the order of deprivation was made. However, even if Article 8 was engaged SIAC was satisfied that there was no breach of it, taking into account the fact that the deprivation of citizenship arose from the appellant’s own actions and the fact that he would be able to re-establish a private life in Nigeria. SIAC concluded that the Secretary of State’s decision was proportionate: given the considerable weight to be placed on the State’s interests on national security grounds and on the facts of this case, the State’s interests outweighed those of the children.
Jonathan Glasson QC, Helen Mountfield QC and Hugh Southey QC were involved in this case.
Please see here for a link to the judgment.