The Secretary of State deprived the appellant of his UK nationality and made an exclusion order while he was in Sudan. He now appealed, against the dismissal of his claim for judicial review, brought to challenge that decision made on the ground that it was conducive to the public good to do so.
Held: The Court rejected the argument that there was any legislative intention that an appeal under section 40A should be conducted from the United Kingdom after the repeal of section 40A(6). Laws LJ rejected the argument that the Secretary of State owed the appellant a duty to facilitate his return to the UK to conduct his appeal. He held that there was no general common law right to be present at an appeal and that an in-country appeal can only be guaranteed by legislation.
Laws, Rix, Lewison LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 867, [2012] 3 CMLR 36, [2012] 4 All ER 987, [2013] 1 QB 1008, [2013] 2 WLR 1277
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – GI v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 19-Jul-2011
The claimant had had his UK nationality removed on the grounds that it would be conducive to the public good to do so because the Security Service had assessed that he was involved in terrorism related activities and had links to a number of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Others CA 16-Jul-2020
Return To UK to fight Citizenship Withdrawal
The appellant had, as a 15 year old, left to go to Iraq to be the ISIL terrorist group. She married an ISIL fighter and they had three children, the last one dying. Her citizenship of the UK had been withdrawn by the respondent leaving an . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.461907
