header-logo header-logo

14 October 2013
Issue: 7580 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court clarifies statelessness in Al-Jedda

Home secretary acted unlawfully in stripping refugee of British citizenship

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Home Secretary Theresa May acted unlawfully when she stripped a refugee of his citizenship, because she rendered him stateless.

Hilal Al-Jedda, an Iraqi who claimed asylum in the UK in 1992, was granted British citizenship in 2000, automatically losing his Iraqi citizenship.

In 2004, he travelled to Iraq with his family, where he was arrested and subsequently detained for three years by the British authorities, who believed he was involved in terrorism. Al-Jedda denied the allegations, and no criminal charges were ever brought.

The home secretary then revoked his British citizenship, and he travelled to Turkey. 

Under s 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, a secretary of state may not make a deprivation of citizenship order where satisfied that an order would render a person stateless.

The home secretary argued that her order did not make Al-Jedda stateless because he could have applied for Iraqi citizenship.

Dismissing her appeal, in Home Secretary v Al-Jedda [2013] UKSC 62, Lord Wilson said a s 40(4) inquiry was a “straightforward exercise… it is whether the person holds another nationality at the date of the order”. 

Lord Wilson noted that Home Office guidance on statelessness, published this year, incorporated the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ guidance, which provides that “an individual’s nationality is to be assessed as at the time of determination of eligibility…it is neither a historic nor a predictive exercise”. 

Phil Shiner, solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers, who acted for Al-Quedda, says the ruling “clarifies the law relating to statelessness”.

In separate proceedings, the European Court of Human Rights held in 2011 that Al-Jedda’s internment in Iraq had breached his Art 5(1) right to liberty.

 

Issue: 7580 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
back-to-top-scroll