10 Melbourne University Law Review [Vol 41(2):Adv that ‘UK governments now have at their disposal laws to strip citizenship that are arguably broader than those possessed by any other Western democratic state’.35 These powers have even been used outside of the counterterrorism context to revoke the citizenship of leaders of the Rochdale child sex grooming gang.36 Despite this breadth, the UK is considering further expansions to its denationalisation laws, with the Home Office signalling in October 2015 an intention to consider how to ‘more easily revoke citizenship from those who reject our values’.37 The UK denationalisation legislation does not require consideration of international law principles, nor judicial involvement prior to a ministerial decision to revoke citizenship. Individuals who have their citizenship revoked have a right of appeal,38 and are entitled to written notice outlining this right, as well as the reasons for the deprivation order.39 However, the efficacy of this appeal right can be limited. For instance, the right to appeal does not prevent a person from being subject to the consequences of citizenship deprivation, such as deportation from the UK, with no right to re-enter. This can make the practical 35 Gibney, ‘The Deprivation of Citizenship in the United Kingdom’ (n 12) 326. This comment preceded the enactment of Australia’s citizenship-stripping legislation, which is, in some respects, even broader than the UK legislation as it provides for citizenship-deprivation in a way that bypasses the need for a ministerial decision. Despite this, it can still be argued that the denationalisation powers held by the UK government are the broadest in any Western democracy, given the capacity to use these powers to render individuals stateless and the flexibility inherent in the ‘conducive to the public good’ standard for citizenship-stripping. Indeed, in his April 2016 report, Citizenship Removal Resulting in Statelessness, the UK Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, noted that the UK power to revoke the citizenship of persons with no other citizenship was ‘unusually strong’ in international terms and that it ‘extends further than the laws of most comparable countries in Europe, North America or Australasia’: David Anderson, Citizenship Removal Resulting in Statelessness: First Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Power to Remove Citizenship Obtained by Naturalisation from Persons Who Have No Other Citizenship (Report, April 2016) 17 [4.1] <www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518390/David_An derson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__print_.pdf>, archived at <https://perma.cc/ 6WFT-L9AY>. 36 See, eg, ‘Shabir Ahmed: Sex Gang Leader Appeals over Deportation’, BBC News (London, 16 February 2016) <www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-35590906>, archived at <https://perma.cc/3RNH-M59A>. 37 Secretary of State for the Home Department, Counter-Extremism Strategy (Cm 9148, 2015) 33 [104]. 38 The right of appeal is either to a court (British Nationality Act 1981 (UK) s 40A(1)) or to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (UK) s 2B), depending on whether the decision was made in reliance on closed material. 39 British Nationality Act 1981 (UK) s 40(6). Advance Copy