‘In an appeal concerning the right approach to be taken by “SIAC”, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in disputes about matters which are relevant to the assessment of national security, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal of “U3” (a British and Moroccan woman who was deprived of her British citizenship because of travelling to Syria) and held that SIAC approached the issues in the present case on the proper basis. In a judgment given by Lord Reed (President), the Supreme Court held that an appeal to SIAC, whether made under section 2 or section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, is an appeal in substance as well as in form, and is not equivalent to an application for judicial review. Overall, Lord Hodge (Deputy President) and Lords Lloyd-Jones, Sales and Stephens all agreed with Lord Reed who explained that the appeal raised questions concerning the effect the judgment in R (Begum) v SIAC [2021] UKSC 7 and the earlier decision of the House of Lords in SSHD v Rehman [2001] UKHL 47. U3 has three children who are British citizens. Between 2014 and 2017, she and her children and her then husband lived in Syria under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (“ISIL”). On 18 April 2017 the SSHD gave U3 notice under section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (as amended) that she had decided to make an order under section 40(2) of that Act.’
Full Story
EIN Blog, 10th June 2025
Source: www.ein.org.uk