the function and responsibility of administering justice to another State. Further, administrative convenience is not a legitimate purpose.55 However, UK government ministers have made clear that the UK uses its nationality-stripping power for the purpose of protecting national security by preventing entry of the person deprived into the UK.56 39. To be necessary, deprivation of nationality must be the least intrusive means of achieving the stated purpose.57 In a February 2022 letter to the UK, five UN experts explained how the existence of possible alternative solutions to alleged national security concerns, such as criminal proceedings pursuant to fair trial procedures, sheds doubt on the necessity of deprivation of nationality as a national security measure. Further, the fact that British born citizens with no other nationality cannot be deprived of their nationality shows that the UK has other effective methods of resolving national security concerns, without resorting to nationality deprivation. This raises the question of how nationality deprivation can be necessary for one class of citizens, but not another. 40. In their February 2022 letter, the five UN experts also explained how the severity of the consequences of a deprivation decision on the individual and their family – including their children – makes it very unlikely that deprivation of nationality could be a proportionate response to alleged national security concerns. Procedural rights 41. International law requires that a person deprived of nationality is afforded the right to a fair and public hearing by a court or other independent body (Article 8 (4) of the 1961 Convention and Articles 2 and 14 of the ICCPR, among others).58 Existing legislation 42. We are concerned that, contrary to international law, the HS has almost unfettered discretion to deprive people of nationality. 43. First, a UK nationality deprivation decision does not have to be ordered or reviewed by a court before it takes effect, nor is any prior conviction – let alone a proportionately serious one – required before the HS may make a deprivation order. Although Section 40A BNA provides for a right to appeal against a deprivation order, making an appeal does not suspend the order. As a result, the HS can make a binding order (with all the consequences that entails) even whilst an appeal against her decision is pending. The removal of the suspensive right of appeal also means that deprivation and deportation decisions can be made contemporaneously and that an individual may be deported immediately upon deprivation. This is likely to substantially affect that person’s ability to enforce their right to appeal. 55 See guideline 27vi in the context of detention, which encapsulates the standard principle related to arbitrariness, available at: https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/guidelines%20complete.pdf. 56 see: https://twitter.com/sajidjavid/status/1283753115049693184; ‘ CONTEST The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism’ (June 2018), available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716907/140618_CCS207_CCS02189 29798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf; ‘UK Nationals returning from Syria’ Hansard UK Parliament (18 February 2018), available at: https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-02-18/debates/69E286BB-03A2-4467-AB65B3059436CD53/UKNationalsReturningFromSyria. 57 See for example, HRC General Comment No. 27 on Art. 12 ICCPR:, according to which, “[R]estrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function; they must be the least intrusive instruments amongst those, which might achieve the desired result.” For a discussion of this and other standards, see pages 67 – 71 of the Commentary to the Principles. 58 For a detailed overview, see pages 72 – 82 of the Commentary tp the Principles. 9