R (Begum) v SIAC; R (Begum) v SSHD; Begum v SSHD attached to permitting Ms Begum into the United Kingdom, which it believed was manageable.13 The SSHD appealed these conclusions to the United Kingdom Supreme Court, and Ms Begum cross-appealed the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the appeal to the SIAC did not fall to be allowed if Ms Begum could not fairly and effectively pursue it. The United Kingdom Supreme Court upheld the SSHD’s appeals and dismissed Ms Begum’s cross-appeal.14 The sole judgment was given by Lord Reed, President of the Supreme Court, with whom other members of the Court agreed. II THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT The judgment of Lord Reed is likely to represent the definitive judicial statement concerning the SIAC’s jurisdiction, with the Court’s interpretation, in general, a restrictive one.15 The SIAC has two statutory jurisdictions. The first, regarding statutory appeals from the refusal of human rights claims linked to immigration decisions, has been limited by successive legislative changes to appeal on the basis of breach of human rights protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA 1998’) s 6.16 The second jurisdiction accommodates appeal to the SIAC against deprivation of nationality under the BNA 1981 ss 40A(1)–(2) and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 s 2B.17 In respect of such appeals, Lord Reed observed that ‘[t]here does not appear ever to have been any statutory provision relating to the grounds on which an appeal … may be brought, the matters to be considered, or how the appeal is to be determined’.18 Lord Reed held that, applied to the SIAC, the existence of a right of appeal ‘enables [the SSHD’s] conclusion that he was satisfied to be challenged’ but ‘does not, however, convert the statutory requirement that the Secretary of State must be satisfied into a requirement that SIAC must be satisfied.’19 This applied to the SSHD’s extraterritorial human rights policy, as well as to the basic the BNA 1981 s 40(2) ‘conducive to the public good’ question. 20 Only where a question arose as to whether the SSHD had acted compatibly with the appellant’s ECHR rights contrary to the HRA 1998 s 6, would the SIAC, because of the separate statutory structure related to HRA 1998 rights, carry out its own primary assessment. 21 In the conclusion of his judgment, Lord Reed enumerated four principal errors in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. 22 First, the Court of Appeal misunderstood the scope of an appeal against a decision of the SSHD to refuse a person leave to enter the UK.23 Ms Begum’s appeal against the refusal of leave to enter decision could only be brought on the ground that the decision was unlawful under the HRA 1998 s 6 and, once that argument was not advanced before the Court of Appeal, her appeal against the refusal of leave to enter should have been dismissed. Second, the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the appeal from dismissal of 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Begum v SSHD (n 12) [123]–[128], [120]–[121]. R (Begum) v SIAC; R (Begum) v SSHD; Begum v SSHD [2021] UKSC 7; [2021] AC 765. ibid [28]–[81]. ibid [33]–[37]. ibid [38]–[71]. ibid [40]. ibid [67]. ibid [68]–[69]. ibid. ibid [132]–[136]. ibid [132]. 171