2 K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION A. The circumstances of the case 1. The factual background 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicant was born in Sudan. He arrived in the United Kingdom as a child and was granted indefinite leave to remain as the minor dependent of a refugee, namely his father. In 2000 he became a naturalised British citizen. 5. In 2009 the applicant was arrested and charged with a public order offence arising out of his participation in protests against Israeli military action in Gaza. He was released on bail but in October 2009, before he was required to surrender to his bail, he left the United Kingdom. He contends that he went directly to Sudan; however, according to the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s open statement before the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal (“SIAC”), the Security Service assessment was that he first travelled with two extremist associates to Somalia, where he engaged in terrorism-related activities linked to Al-Shabaab, a jihadist terrorist group based in East Africa, before travelling on to Sudan in April or May 2010 (see paragraph 22 below). 6. By letter dated 11 June 2010 the Secretary of State notified the applicant of her intention to make an order pursuant to section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“the 1981 Act”) depriving him of his British citizenship on the ground that to do so would be conducive to the public good. On 14 June 2010 the Secretary of State signed the order. 7. Also by letter of 14 June 2010 the Secretary of State notified the applicant of her decision to exercise the Crown’s common law prerogative power to exclude him from the United Kingdom on the ground that he was “involved in terrorism-related activities” and had “links to a number of Islamic extremists”. 8. The applicant sought to challenge the decision to exclude him from the United Kingdom by way of judicial review. He also appealed against the decision to deprive him of his citizenship. As the Secretary of State had certified that this decision was taken wholly or partly in reliance on information which in her opinion should not be made public in the interests of national security, the applicant’s right of appeal lay to SIAC. However, the SIAC appeal was stayed while the judicial review proceedings were pursued. 2. The judicial review proceedings (a) The High Court 9. The applicant made three submissions before the High Court. First, he argued that the statutory scheme impliedly precluded the exercise of