R (on the application of Hysaj and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Hale,Lord Kerr,Lord Wilson,Lord Hughes,Lord Hodge |
| Judgment Date | 21 December 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] UKSC 82 |
| Docket Number | SC/2016/0209 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 21 December 2017 |
[2017] UKSC 82
Lady Hale, President
Lord Kerr
Lord Wilson
Lord Hughes
Lord Hodge
SC/2016/0209
SC/2016/0211
IN THE SUPREME COURT
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
Michaelmas Term
On appeal from: [2015] EWCA Civ 1195
Appellants
Stephen Knafler QC
Sonali Naik
Helen Foot
(Instructed by Naim Hasani of Duncan Lewis Solicitors (Harrow))
Respondent
Lisa Giovannetti QC
Jonathan Moffett QC
(Instructed by The Government Legal Department)
( with whomLord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord HughesandLord Hodgeagree)
This judgment is given in unusual circumstances. The Secretary of State, as respondent to these appeals, has applied pursuant to rule 34(2) of the Supreme Court Rules 2009 for these appeals to be allowed by consent. The appellants of course agree. However, this court took the view that we could not make an order allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders in the courts below without understanding the reasons for doing so and their impact upon the point of law of general public importance raised by the appeals. The Secretary of State has supplied those reasons, with which this court agrees. This judgment is accordingly based upon them.
Although there are only two appeals before this court, these cases were heard in the Court of Appeal along with a third case, that of Mr Kaziu, which was decided on the same basis: R (Kaziu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1195, [2016] 1 WLR 673. The Secretary of State therefore accepts that the principles adopted in this judgment should also apply to him.
The issue is whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under sections 40 and 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981.
Mr Hysaj was born Dinjan Hysaj in Albania in 1977. He came to this country and claimed asylum in July 1998. He gave his true name, but claimed to have been born in 1981 and thus to be a child at the time of his asylum claim. He also falsely claimed that he was a citizen of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from Kosovo, and that he had been persecuted there. He was accepted as a refugee and given indefinite leave to remain (ILR) here in 1999. In 2004 he applied for and was granted naturalisation as a British citizen, using the same false details as he had used in his asylum claim. Thus he obtained British citizenship in his own name but using a false date of birth, a false nationality and a false place of birth.
Mr Bakijasi was born Agron Bakijasi in Albania on 22 October 1972. He came to this country and claimed asylum in 1999. He gave a false name, Agron Adjini, a false date of birth, and falsely claimed to be a citizen of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from Kosovo, and that he had been persecuted there. His asylum claim was refused on the basis that it was safe for him to return to Kosovo. But his later application for ILR, using the same false details, was granted under the Family ILR exercise in September 2005. Using the same false details, he applied for and was granted naturalisation as a British citizen in November 2006. Thus he obtained British citizenship using a false name, a false date of birth, a false nationality and a false place of birth.
When these frauds came to light, the Secretary of State decided that, in each case, the grant of citizenship was a nullity, so that the appellants were not, and never had been, British citizens. They had therefore remained at all times on ILR, which had been validly granted to them. She did so on the basis of binding Court of Appeal authority. In these judicial review proceedings, that decision was upheld, albeit with some reluctance, by Ouseley J in the High Court ( [2014] EWHC 832 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 945) and by the Court of Appeal ( [2015] EWCA Civ 1195, [2016] 1 WLR 673). Sales LJ described the interpretation given by the binding Court of Appeal authorities as “problematic in various respects” (para 64).
Section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 provides that:
“If, on an application for naturalisation as a British citizen made by a person of full age and capacity, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 for naturalisation as such a citizen under this subsection, he may, if he thinks fit, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation as such a citizen.”
Section 40 of the 1981 Act makes provision for the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship obtained by registration or naturalisation if satisfied that the registration or naturalisation was obtained by means of “fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact”. On the face of it, fraud or false representation would include the sort of misrepresentations as to identity made by the appellants, so that, if the Secretary of State sees fit, they could be deprived of their citizenship under that provision. Section 40A makes provision for a right of appeal against most such deprivations to the First-tier Tribunal.
There are four relevant decisions in the Court of Appeal before this one but none in the House of Lords or Supreme Court. For convenience, the applicant for citizenship is referred to as X and the identity in which he applied for citizenship is referred to as Y.
In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Sultan Mahmood [1981] QB 58, decided in 1978, X impersonated Y, a real person, who was his dead brother-in-law and cousin, to obtain registration as a British citizen under section 5A of the British Nationality Act 1948. Roskill LJ held that there were three possible effects of the purported grant. First, it might have been a grant to Y; but it could not have been, because Y was dead. Second, it might have been a grant to X; but it could not have been, because the Secretary of State had no knowledge of X, believing him to be Y. Third, it might have been of no effect at all; as it could not be the first or the second, it could only be a nullity. Accordingly, X had never become a citizen of the United Kingdom.
The next case, decided in 1980, was R v Secretary of State for the Hone Department, Ex p Parvaz Akhtar [1981] QB 46. X was registered as a citizen by his purported father, Z, in the name of Y, under section 7(1) of the 1948 Act, which allows for the registration of a minor child of a British citizen. X was not the son of Z. Applying Mahmood, the Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State had no power or intention to register X or any Y other than an actual son of Z. Accordingly, X never became a citizen of the United Kingdom.
Next came R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Ejaz [1994] QB 496. X applied for citizenship in her real name under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act, which provides for the naturalisation of a person who is married to a British citizen. Later, it turned out that X's husband was not, and never had been, a British citizen, having been granted a British passport in a false identity. The Court of Appeal declined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship: Delay)
...Civ 8; [2013] 1 WLR 2546; [2013] Imm AR 651; [2013] INLR 634 R (on the application of Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 82; [2018] 1 WLR 221; [2018] 2 All ER 471; [2018] Imm AR 699; [2018] INLR 279 R (on the application of KV) v Secretary of State for the Home ......
-
M v The Minister for Foreign Affairs
... ... friend had been physically present in the State for the period required by s. 6A of the Irish ... , decided to refuse the appellant’s application for an Irish passport on the basis that he was ... ...
-
Habte v Minister for Justice and Equality
...in its conclusion by the respondent's own guidelines, and the decision in Hysai was subsequently reversed on appeal on consent (see [2017] UKSC 82). However, the former merely explain the operation of the provision in line with the text of the section, as was held by the Court, and the vac......
-
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and asylum chamber), 2020-03-19, [2020] UKUT 128 (IAC) (Hysaj (Deprivation of Citizenship:Delay))
...known to her. The benefit of hindsight, post the Supreme Court judgment in R (Hysaj) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 82, does not lessen the significant public interest in the deprivation of British citizenship acquired through fraud or 2. No legitimate expectation......
-
Upper Tribunal Guidance On Deprivation Of British Citizenship Appeals
...knowledge, but it was withdrawn in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 82. The respondent accepted that the appellant was a British citizen but considered deprivation action under section 40(3) of the British Nationalit......