Read 40(4) BNA 1981.
Current Affairs Shemima Begum
- Thread starter Mrtallywacker
- Start date
- Status
Yarrgh
Player Valuation: £80m
(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.
[F3(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.]
It does state that the SoS cannot make anyone stateless with the exceptions above is how it reads to me. The bit after (b) I think is key. (c) less so, but certainly muddies the waters if there is a route to obtain Bangladeshi citizenship - my suspicion is this is to show that the hands of the government are 'clean' in the whole affair and pushing the issue on another country - Earlier in the thread, a case with stripping citizenship from a dual (Canadian) nationality was mentioned and Canada were not aware of the decision until after it was made. Sh*thousery from our government? Colour me unsurprised.
Interestingly, if you added an imagninary 'and' at the end of (a) and (b), I think it would have not been possible to take her citizenship as she was born here and it would invalidate (a). Read it as an 'or' and you are closer in spirit to the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of this, but I believe that a person can be made stateless. It's evidently possible by the outcome of this case. The fact that the Supreme Court has upheld this verdict also implies that my couple of hours research on the matter over the weekend leads me to the same conclusion. This is not the area of my expertise by any means, I wanted to challenge the preconceived notion that you can't be made stateless as it seems to be a commonly held one.
But there is good news for those of you who wish her back, Statelessness is a reason for a right to remain if she were to manage somehow to return!
The question posed is if the Court should apply a test based purely on the opinion of the HS.
Lord Buckethead
Player Valuation: £35m
Yet another Tory Cabinet minister acting illegally.
These people have no shame, they should be nowhere near any position of power.
These people have no shame, they should be nowhere near any position of power.
@Yarrgh apologies, i was posting a little in haste.
The issue in question was if she should be allowed to return to contest her appeal (not if the decision was correct to make her stateless - which forms the basis of the appeal that will likely never be heard).
The SIAC gave no judgement on the substance of whether she should or should not be deprived of her British citizenship. This was about whether she should be granted permission to return to the UK to argue her citizenship case. The Court of Appeal had found that she should.
The SC decision prevents her arguing that that HS was wrong and that it is actually not 'conducive to the public good' for her to be deprived of her citizenship.
Billy Dean
Player Valuation: £70m
I wish we could just strip the citizenship of anyone I wouldn't like to have as a next door neighbour.
There would be very few people in the UK if I could do that
Need to stop spending millions on nob heads.
The UK or Everton?
We just need a latin translation and it'll be GrandOldTeam's slogan
UK aut Everton( uk or everton)
nolite quasi spending milia knobheads
Last edited:
They don't care. Nobody's going to hold them to account and they know it.
Spadge Vernacular
Player Valuation: £70m
Everton that!
Lapeno77
Player Valuation: £35m
I do wonder if the Supreme Court decision has took the Govt aback. Perhaps they were 'engineering' the situation as a bit of a gotcha moment to create a groundswell of public support for Judiciary reforms. The original decision was taken in the aftermath of the 'Enemies of The People' headlines when the government wasn't getting it's own way in certain matters.
I think the Govt was desperate to make their original ruling stick. There are approx 150 other UK born beardies in various camps and prisons across the middle east who have been stripped of their UK nationality.
Shemima Begun was simply a test case. If she had won the right to appeal in the UK, or even won her case outright then all the other beardies would come flooding back to the UK.
Unlike this girl, many of the other miscreants are hard-nosed Jihadi's. Bomb makers, strategic and tactical planners, hybrid warfare specialists. You get the picture. Having that lot loose in the UK doesn't bear thinking about.
Shemima Begun was simply a test case. If she had won the right to appeal in the UK, or even won her case outright then all the other beardies would come flooding back to the UK.
Unlike this girl, many of the other miscreants are hard-nosed Jihadi's. Bomb makers, strategic and tactical planners, hybrid warfare specialists. You get the picture. Having that lot loose in the UK doesn't bear thinking about.
- Status