K2 v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION 5 right to remain. While Lord Justice Rix was less clear on whether there was a discriminatory aspect to this difference in treatment, he considered that as the applicant had left the country of his own volition, there was no requirement of domestic or EU law mandating his re-entry for the purposes of his appeal. 19. The Court of Appeal also considered that Article 14 of the Convention did not apply. On this occasion the applicant had argued that Article 14 could be read in conjunction with Article 8, since his right to respect for his private and family life had been interfered with, but the Court of Appeal found that the claim had “nothing whatever to do with Article 8”. The applicant was not asserting a claim to enter the United Kingdom to enjoy the rights conferred by Article 8, and the attempt to engage Article 14 through this Article was “artificial and adventitious”. (c) The Supreme Court 20. On 8 February 2013 the Supreme Court refused the applicant’s application for permission to appeal. 3. The SIAC proceedings (a) Preliminary issues 21. Following the conclusion of the judicial review proceedings, the applicant amended his grounds of appeal to SIAC. He raised a number of grounds which were dealt with as a preliminary issue, including the engagement of EU procedural obligations and the operation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8. In a judgment of 24 October 2014 SIAC rejected those submissions, principally on the basis that the appeal was not subject to any procedural requirements derived from EU law. 22. In preparation for the substantive hearing, the Secretary of State set out her national security case against the applicant in an open statement. In summary, it assessed that in October 2009 he had left the United Kingdom for Somalia with two named extremists, and whilst in Somalia they had engaged in terrorism-related activities linked to Al-Shabaab. The applicant subsequently travelled from Somalia to Sudan in April or May 2010. 23. The applicant made three submissions on appeal: that he had a positive case which he wished to put in rebuttal of the Security Services’ assessments and the Secretary of State’s conclusions; that his positive case demonstrated that he did not pose any (or any sufficient) risk to national security and, accordingly, there was no adequate basis upon which he should be deprived of citizenship; and that he was unable to provide instructions as to the national security case against him and/or to participate meaningfully in his appeal as it was unsafe for him to do so from Sudan. 24. At the beginning of the appeal, the Special Advocates acting on behalf of the applicant indicated that in the absence of any instructions from