The Supreme Court this week will tackle appeals dealing with the deprivation of British citizenship and the fallout of such decisions, in three cases over three days,
But first, the El-Khouri v Government of the United States of America appeal, which went part-heard on 9 October 2024, will conclude on 18 November 2024. Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Leggatt, and Lord Stephens make up the panel.
On 19 November 2024, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, and Lord Stephens will hear argument in N3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department and ZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Both appeals concern the effect of withdrawing an order depriving a person of British citizenship – are the persons to be considered British citizens between the time of the deprivation order and the withdrawal of that order?
The appellant N3 had his British citizenship revoked, but the Secretary withdrew the order when it became clear that he did not retain a Bangladeshi citizenship, such that he would be stateless. The appellant ZA is the child of a person in N3’s position, and was born after the deprivation order was made but before it was withdrawn. If her father is treated as having been a British citizen during that period, ZA would have automatic British citizenship. The Secretary of State argues that neither N3 or ZA’s father were citizens following the deprivation orders until they were withdrawn. The appellants bids for judicial review were rejected at the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The same panel will hear U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department over 20 and 21 November 2024. The Secretary made a deprivation order stripping the appellant U3 of her British citizenship in 2017. After her children, who are British, returned to the UK in 2019, she sought clearance to enter the UK, which the Secretary refused. U3 appealed those decisions to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which found that its jurisdiction was limited to reviewing the Secretary’s decision on public law grounds. The Court of Appeal dismissed U3’s appeal but found that the Commission had a broader function than it thought. The issues for the Supreme Court include whether the Commission can undertake a full merits review of the Secretary’s decision and question the Secretary’s assessment of national security risks.
