L2, appeal by
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 2017 |
| Case Outcome | Dismissed |
| Court | Special Immigration Appeals Commission |
| Appellant | L2 |
| Subject Matter | Exclusion |
SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Appeal No: SC/123/2013
Hearing Dates: 24th, 25th & 26th May 2016 & 2 May 2017
Date of Judgment: 31st May 2017
Before:
THE HONOURABLE SIR JOHN GRIFFITH WILLIAMS
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GILL
MR PHILIP NELSON CMG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:
L2
Appellant
- and -
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Hugh Southey QC and Mr Faisal Saifee (instructed by HMA Solicitors) appeared on
behalf of the Appellant
Mr Jonathan Glasson QC and Ms Rosemary Davidson (instructed by the Government Legal
Department) appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State
Ms Helen Mountfield QC and Mr Zubair Ahmad (instructed by the Special Advocates’
Support Office) appeared as Special Advocates
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OPEN JUDGMENT
L2 v SSHD
Page 2
The Hon. Sir John Griffith Williams :
Introduction
1. L2 (“the Appellant”) was born on 14 October 1981 in Nigeria. His Nigerian
nationality is not in dispute. He gained British citizenship (together with his
father and siblings) in about 1997. He moved to the United Kingdom with his
family in 1999, when he was aged about 18 years. He had both Nigerian and
British passports.
2. In the United Kingdom he completed his education, obtaining a first-class
honours degree in mathematics and statistics in 2005. In June 2007, he
travelled to Turkey. On 11 May 2008, he was found in possession of a firearm
and ammunition when he was subject to a random stop-and-search by police
officers in Camden. On 11 July 2008, in the Crown Court at Blackfriars, he
pleaded guilty to offences of possession of a firearm with intent and
assaulting a police officer. On 30 January 2009, in the Crown Court at
Blackfriars, he was sentenced to a total of 30 months’ imprisonment. He was
released on licence in or about September 2009. He travelled to Saudi Arabia
in October 2011. In July 2012, he travelled with his second wife to Morocco
and at the end of March/early April 2013 onward to Lagos, Nigeria where they
stayed with his father and where his wife gave birth to their first child, K, on 2
August 2013.
3. On 21 October 2013, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“the
SSHD”) made a decision, pursuant to the provisions of section 40(2) of the
British Nationality Act 1981, to deprive the Appellant of his British nationality
on the grounds that she was satisfied the deprivation was conducive to the
L2 v SSHD
Page 3
public good. She certified that her decision was taken wholly or in part in
reliance on information which should not be made public in the interests of
national security and because disclosure would be contrary to the public
interest. The Appellant was served with a notice of deprivation order on 8
November 2013 at the British Consulate in Lagos. The notice informed him:
“The reason for the decision is that it is assessed that you have
been involved in Islamist extremism and present a risk to the
national security of the UK due to your extreme activities”.
The SSHD made the Deprivation Order that same day, with the effect that the
Appellant was excluded from the United Kingdom.
4. Notice of appeal was lodged on 4 December 2013. The grounds of the appeal
as later amended are as follows:
“(i) The Appellant did not constitute a risk to the national
security of the United Kingdom such that it was “conducive to
the public good“ to deprive him of his British citizenship;
(ii) It was not a proportionate response to any risk posed by the
Appellant for the Secretary of State to deprive him of his British
citizenship;
(iii) The decision violates the Appellant’s right to respect for
family and private life under Article 8 ECHR and therefore
comprises a breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act.
(iv) The deprivation of the Appellant’s citizenship having the
effect of removing his European citizenship and preventing the
Appellant from entering the Union should be measured against
a yardstick of proportionality under EU law.
(v) The deprivation of citizenship would only be permissible
under EU law on grounds of national security if the Appellant
had been informed of and was able to address the essence of
those grounds in a manner which takes due account of the
necessary confidentiality of the evidence”
5. While is it accepted on behalf of the Appellant that the Commission is bound
by the judgment of the Court of Appeal Civil Division in Regina (G1) v
To continue reading
Request your trial