2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) 1981 s 40(4), by which no order may be made under the BNA 1981 s 40(2) ‘if [the SSHD] is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless’, did not apply because Ms Begum was a citizen of Bangladesh by descent. 5 The SSHD also concluded that the decision did not breach the ‘extra-territorial human rights policy’ by which deprivation of British nationality would not be entered into if a foreseeable risk of harm (which would breach arts 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), if within the jurisdiction) would arise as a direct consequence.6 Ms Begum’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (‘SIAC’). 7 Ms Begum also sought leave to enter the United Kingdom to take part in her appeal. In June 2019, the SSHD refused this. Ms Begum filed a second notice of appeal to the SIAC in relation to this new decision based upon ECHR art 8. In light of the uncertainty as to whether the jurisdiction of the SIAC enabled all matters which might be raised in a public law claim, she also filed an application for judicial review. The appeal and judicial review matters were heard together in linked SIAC and Administrative Court proceedings. The SIAC, in a detailed set of preliminary findings, held that (i) Ms Begum would not be made stateless by deprivation of nationality, because she was, despite statements to the contrary made by the authorities of Bangladesh, a national of that country;8 (ii) the SSHD was reasonably entitled to conclude that no risk of engaging the extraterritorial human rights policy arose;9 (iii) while Ms Begum could not have a fair and effective appeal whilst in custody in Syria, this finding did not dictate that her appeal must be allowed. 10 It dismissed her appeal from refusal of leave to enter. In the judicial review proceedings, the Administrative Court adopted relevant parts of the SIAC decision. 11 Ms Begum’s lawyers sought and obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal from dismissal of the entry clearance appeal and the judicial review application. As to the SIAC’s preliminary conclusions, no statutory appeal existed. Ms Begum did not challenge the SIAC’s preliminary conclusion as to nationality and whether she would be made stateless by the order. However, Ms Begum’s lawyers sought and obtained permission to apply for judicial review of those findings, and this was heard by the Court of Appeal sitting as a Divisional Court. 12 The Court of Appeal allowed Ms Begum’s appeal in part, holding (i) that the SIAC had erred in assessing the ECHR art 3 risk, treating itself as conducting a review on rationality grounds, not an independent risk assessment; (ii) that fairness required that Ms Begum be permitted entry into the UK to participate in her appeal; and (iii) that the Court was able to consider the national security risk 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BNA 1981 (n 2) ss 40(2), (4); SIAC Determination (n 1) [27]. SIAC Determination (n 1) [129]–[134]. The statutory basis for appeal is BNA 1981 (n 2) ss 40A(1)–(2) and Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (UK) s 2B. Appeal would ordinarily be to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) but is to Special Immigration Appeals Commission if the Secretary of State for the Home Department certifies that the decision relies wholly or partly upon information which, in his opinion, should not be made public, for reasons of national security or international relations of the United Kingdom or otherwise in the public interest. SIAC Determination (n 1) [27]–[128], [192]. ibid [129]–[139], [192]. ibid [140]–[192]. Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 74 (Admin), [3]. Begum v SIAC and another; R (Begum) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 918; [2020] 1 WLR 4267, [5]–[6] (‘Begum v SSHD’). 170