Abdul Aziz v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Stephen Richards,Lord Justice Sales,Sir Terence Etherton |
| Judgment Date | 08 August 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] EWCA Civ 1884 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case Nos: C5/2017/1543, C5/2017/1545 & C5/2017/1546 |
| Date | 08 August 2018 |
[2018] EWCA Civ 1884
THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
Lord Justice Sales
and
Sir Stephen Richards
Case Nos: C5/2017/1543, C5/2017/1545 & C5/2017/1546
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER)
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE MCCLOSKEY &
DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HOLMES
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Appellants were present at the hearing but not represented
Cathryn McGahey QC and Vinesh Mandalia (instructed by Government Legal Department Litigation Group) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 18 July 2018
Judgment Approved
The appellants are naturalised British citizens. At the time of the relevant decisions of the Secretary of State, the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) and the Upper Tribunal, the appellants had dual nationality, being citizens of Pakistan. This appeal concerns the proposal of the Secretary of State to make an order to deprive the appellants of their British citizenship pursuant to section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981.
The appellants are part of a group of men convicted in 2012 of a range of offences involving the grooming, sexual abuse and trafficking of girls in Rochdale in a case which attracted national attention and notoriety. The steps to deprive the appellants of British nationality are a prelude to possible deportation to Pakistan. Each of the appellants has children in the UK and an established private life in the UK. They maintain that deportation to Pakistan would violate their right to respect for family and private life as set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as given effect in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. They also maintain that deportation would be in breach of the obligation of the Secretary of State and the tribunals to have regard to the interests of their children as a primary consideration, pursuant to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (“section 55”).
If a decision is eventually taken to deport the appellants, they will each have a right of appeal to the FTT against such decision. Upon such an appeal, they will be entitled to rely on their Article 8 rights and section 55, so far as concerns the issues that would arise in relation to their deportation. They will be able to adduce evidence going to those issues as at the relevant time in the future, if and when the Secretary of State decides to make a deportation order in respect of them and if and when any appeal against such a decision is heard by the FTT. Any such decision and any appeal is likely to be many months away.
The present proceedings relate to the prior stage, namely that of deprivation of British citizenship. The principal issue on the appeal is whether the Secretary of State and the FTT have made a proper and lawful assessment at the deprivation stage of the impact of deprivation of citizenship upon the appellants and their children, so far as concerns their rights under Article 8 and section 55.
Section 40 of the 1981 Act, which is headed “Deprivation of Citizenship”, provides:
“(1) In this section a reference to a person's “citizenship status” is a reference to his status as-”
(a) a British citizen,
(b) a British overseas territories citizen,
(c) a British Overseas citizen,
(d) a British National (Overseas),
(e) a British protected person, or
(f) a British subject.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
…
(4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.
…
(4A) But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a) the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.
(5) Before making an order under this section in respect of a person the Secretary of State must give the person written notice specifying —
(a) that the Secretary of State has decided to make an order,
(b) the reasons for the order, and
(c) the person's right of appeal under section 40A (1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
(6) Where a person acquired a citizenship status by the operation of a law which applied to him because of his registration or naturalisation under an enactment having effect before commencement, the Secretary of State may by order deprive the person of the citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of —
(a) fraud,
(b) false representation, or
(c) concealment of a material fact.”
Factual background
In 2012, the appellants were part of a group of nine men convicted at the Crown Court in Liverpool in respect of the grooming and sexual exploitation of several girls aged in their early teens in Rochdale. The men were sentenced on 9 May 2012. The sentencing judge described how in some cases the girls were raped callously, viciously and violently; and in some cases they were driven round Rochdale and Oldham to be made to have sex with paying customers. All the men treated the girls as though they were worthless and beyond all respect. They were motivated by lust and greed.
The judge's sentencing remarks specific to the three appellants were as follows:
“Abdul Aziz, I have to sentence you for conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child by penetrative sex and trafficking for sexual exploitation a 15 year old girl. You are an intelligent man referred to by some of your co-accused as The Master. You took over from Shabir Ahmed and ran this operation with Melissa Kirk. You took the victim who was so many years younger than you to the Jackie Street flat. You knew that she had been or was to be plied with weed and vodka. You then coerced her into sex with men. You took her there several times a week for a period of three months. You also took her twice to a flat in Falinge and to Ashworth Valley. You received money from these men. You made her have anal sex when she was menstruating. I accept that you did not have sexual intercourse with her yourself.
Society finds this sort of behaviour repugnant. In my view, having watched you carefully during this trial, I am satisfied that the degree of coercion you used towards her was real and severe and that this constitutes an additional aggravating factor. As far as the conspiracy count is involved you were aware that a large number of men were involved and several girls.
The sentence on you, despite your previous good character must be severe. On the count of trafficking you will go to prison for nine years, on the count of conspiracy nine years concurrent.
…
Abdul Rauf, you have to be sentenced with trafficking a 15 year old girl and conspiracy. The trafficking varied between your driving her to a lonely area near Heywood and having sex with her in your taxi and driving her to a flat in Rochdale where you and others had sex with her. On the evidence this happened from 10 to 20 times. The image you gave during this trial was of a deeply hypocritical individual. I accept that you have health issues. On the count of trafficking you will go to prison for six years, on the count of conspiracy for six years concurrent.
…
Adil Khan, you fall to be sentenced for two offences of conspiracy and trafficking a 15 year old girl. During the course of this case the jury heard that you, in your forties had formed a relationship with a 15 year old girl from which she became pregnant. Until you were forced to do so by scientific proof you refused to admit that relationship. Having met another 15 year old at one address you trafficked her to another, where she had sex with you and another about four times. When she remonstrated with you about what you were ordering her to do, you used violence towards here. You too are an intelligent man and also in my view a hypocrite. On the trafficking count you will go to prison for eight years with eight years concurrent on the conspiracy counts. …”
In July 2015, the Secretary of State gave notice to each of the appellants pursuant to section 40(5) of the 1981 Act that she proposed to make an order to deprive him of citizenship, acting under section 40(2), on the grounds that it would be conducive to the public good to do so. Representations were made on behalf of each appellant to complain that the Secretary of State had not given adequate consideration to the interests of the appellants' children when deciding to give such notice. In the light of those representations the Secretary of State withdrew those notices.
By further notices dated 2 December 2015 sent to each of the appellants, the Secretary of State again gave notice under section 40(5) that she proposed making an order to deprive him of citizenship, again in reliance on section 40(2). These notices stated in each case that the Secretary of State took the view that the offences of which the appellant had been convicted were “serious and organised offences, involving collusion with others as is evident from the length of your sentence”. In each...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ciceri (Deprivation of Citizenship Appeals: Principles)
...of KV) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department[2018] EWCA Civ 2483, Aziz and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2018] EWCA Civ 1884, Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship: Delay)[2020] UKUT 128 (IAC), R (on the application of Begum) v Special Immigration Appeasl Commissio......
- Muslija (Deprivation: Reasonably Foreseeable Consequences) Albania
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2021-10-11, DC/00091/2019 & DC/00127/2019
...engage in a full proleptic assessment of the Article 8 compatibility of removal: see Aziz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1884 at [26], per Sales LJ, as he then was. While the ECHR may be engaged in relation to some aspects of a decision to deprive a person of t......
-
Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship: Delay)
...of citizenship – delay) [2012] UKUT 80 (IAC); [2012] Imm AR 645 Aziz, Khan and Rauf v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1884; [2019] WLR 266; [2019] ImmAR 264 BA (deprivation of citizenship: appeals) [2018] UKUT 85 (IAC); [2018] Imm AR 807 Bank Mellat v Her Majesty'......