Report on United Kingdom 3.3 Losing British citizenship A person who renounces British citizenship in order to take up nationality in a country that does not permit dual nationality is entitled to register so as to become a British citizen again, but only once (s. 13 British Nationality Act 1981). After that, it is discretionary only. There are no current suggestions that citizenship should be withdrawn for those residing permanently or long-term abroad, although non-citizens with indefinite leave to remain can lose their right to return to the UK after two years absence. Deprivation of citizenship by the government has emerged as a critical issue in recent years. The original s. 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, reproducing existing powers but extending them to registered citizens, allowed deprivation of naturalised and registered citizens on the grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact. There was also power to deprive on the grounds of disaffection, disloyalty, engaging with the enemy during wartime or imprisonment for more than twelve months within five years of acquiring nationality, but only if this would not leave the person concerned stateless. Powers of deprivation were barely used at that time; the last denaturalisation had occurred eight years before the 1981 Act was passed and none occurred in the decade afterwards (Gibney 2014: 329-330). However, the events of September 2001 caused new anxieties about terrorism. S. 4 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 replaced the disaffection etc. grounds in the 1981 Act with a single clause allowing deprivation of citizenship if the person had done something seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK or a British overseas territory. This applied to all citizens irrespective of how citizenship had been acquired so included those who were British by birth but could not be used if the result would be statelessness. There was also a right of appeal. The background included general concern about security and widespread media coverage of the Home Secretary’s inability to deport Abu Hamza al-Masri, an objectionable Muslim preacher originally from Egypt who had naturalised following his marriage to a British woman. However, in the event, he could not have his citizenship removed under this new provision because he no longer possessed Egyptian nationality. Two years later, s. 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004 made appeals against deprivation orders non-suspensive so that individuals did not retain their citizenship during the appeal process with drastic consequences discussed below. A further ‘war on terror’ case, Hicks,37 was the apparent catalyst for still further change although, as Majid (2008) suggests, the July 2005 bombings of public transport in London were also in the background. David Hicks, an Australian national interned by the US at Guantanamo, applied to register as a British citizen by descent - his mother was British, entitling him to do so - in order to obtain release along with the other British citizens. The Home Secretary initially refused to register him but, after this was found to be unlawful, proposed to withdraw his citizenship immediately thereafter. This was prevented by the Court of Appeal after careful consideration of the legislative provisions which, it was found, did not permit deprivation in respect of conduct that occurred before nationality had been acquired. At the material time, which was prior to the registration he now sought, he owed no allegiance and so by definition could not have been disloyal (see Sawyer 2013 for a discussion). The new measure, s.56 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, allows the Secretary of State to make an order of deprivation of citizenship if she considers it to be conducive to the public good. There was considerable concern expressed at the breadth of the power (see Sawyer 2013 for a discussion). The provision came into force immediately and is mirrored in s.57, which allows for the deprivation of the right of abode for the same reason. The ‘conducive to the public good’ terminology 37 [2006] EWCA Civ 400. RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2014/1 - © 2014 Authors 15