ZZ, appeal by
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 08 August 2014 |
| Appellant | ZZ |
| Court | Special Immigration Appeals Commission |
| Subject Matter | Exclusion |
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
Appeal No: SC/63/2007
Hearing Dates: 1st – 3rd July 2014
Date of Judgment: 8th August 2014
BEFORE:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE IRWIN
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE PERKINS
MR STEPHEN PARKER
BETWEEN: ZZ Appellant
and
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Respondents
- - - - - - - -
MR HUGH SOUTHEY QC and MR N ARMSTRONG (instructed by Public Law Project )
appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR T EICKE QC and MR DAVID CRAIG (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared
on behalf of the Secretary of State.
MR A UNDERWOOD QC and MR M GOUDIE (Instructed by Special Advocates' Support
Office) appeared as Special Advocates
- - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
- - - - - - - -
1
Judgment Approved by the court for handing down
2
1. This case concerns rights to information derived from European Union law and the
consequent obligations on a Member State to release information even where, in the
view of the Member State, that information impinges on national security. In this
case those rights are said to spring from the French citizenship of this Appellant.
2. The facts are familiar. It is not necessary for us to set them out in full. They are
analysed fully in the judgment of SIAC of 30 July 2008. In short summary, ZZ has
dual nationality, Algerian and French. On 25 August 2005 the Secretary of State
cancelled his indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom and excluded him
from the United Kingdom. The Home Office had been notified on 19 August 2005 -
that is to say six days before those decisions - that ZZ had left the UK. His
application for naturalisation was refused on 30 August 2005. A little over a year
later, on 18 September 2006, the Appellant arrived at Heathrow from Algeria,
presenting his French passport. He was refused admission to the country and
removed to Algeria. His challenge is to the refusal to admit him to the UK on that
date.
3. The matter turns on Regulation 19(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area)
Regulations 2006. The refusal to permit his entry was justified within those
Regulations on grounds of public security. The matter came to SIAC following
certification by the Secretary of State on 15 March 2007.
The SIAC Decision of 2008
Regulations just mentioned, which transpose into English law the Directive
2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2004, those provisions
conferring on every citizen of the Union “a primary and individual right to move and
reside freely within the territory of the Member States”, words forming part of Recital
1 of the preamble to the Directive.
5. Recital 22 identifies the restrictions placed upon the right, which include “public
security”. Recital 23 imports the “principle of proportionality”, where expulsion of
Union citizens is in question. SIAC in its original decision went on to consider and
recite various of the safeguards set out in the Directive, including Recitals 24 to 26,
inclusive, of the Directive, as follows:
“(22) The Treaty allows restrictions to be placed on the right of
free movement and residence on grounds of public policy,
public security or public health. In order to ensure a tighter
definition of the circumstances and procedural safeguards
subject to which Union citizens and their family members may
be denied leave to enter or may be expelled, this Directive
should replace Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25th February
1964 on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the
movement and residence of foreign nationals, which are
To continue reading
Request your trial