Caroline Sawyer, Helena Wray may be exercised in respect of all types of British national; not only British citizens but British overseas territories citizens, British overseas citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British protected persons, and British subjects. Deprivation may now take place where the Secretary of State is satisfied: • That registration or naturalisation was obtained by concealment of a material fact (applies only to naturalised or registered citizens but may be used even if it causes statelessness); • Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good (applies however nationality was obtained but may not be used if the result is statelessness); • Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or its territories (applies only to naturalised citizens but the order may be made even if it causes statelessness). It will be some time before it is known whether and how the power to make a person stateless has been exercised. It will be of doubtful utility if the person is still in the UK, as, leaving aside the human rights and other obstacles to expulsion, it will not be possible, in most cases, to find another country to accept them (although the Home Office has previously issued directions to remove a person to a country of which he is not a citizen).45 To the extent that all deprivation decisions must be proportionate to be lawful, any such decision which results in statelessness must be subjected to particular scrutiny given the horror with which statelessness is generally regarded. The UK’s current law and practice on deprivation of citizenship has four major and disturbing implications. The first is that, by removing citizenship when an individual is outside the UK, the government is forcing other states to take responsibility for managing the danger that this person supposedly represents. The desire to dump undesirable citizens as if, in the words of Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty), they are ‘toxic waste’46 is even more apparent in plans announced shortly before this report was updated in November 2014. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, introduced to the House of Commons on 26th November 2014, contains powers to seize the passports of those who, it is suspected, are intending to leave the UK to participate in terrorism related activity. It also has powers to prevent British citizens (presumably those who, as sole nationals by birth, cannot be denationalised) from re-entering the UK except under onerous conditions. Both deprivation to prevent re-admission and the proposed exclusion orders raise significant questions of international law under which states have obligations in respect of their citizens (or former citizens).47 Secondly, it is not at all clear that this strategy will make the world a safer place overall; deprivation outside the UK has gone ahead even where the security services have advised that the risk could be better managed within the UK (Ross 2014). Thirdly, citizenship law once again reflects the modern political obsession with protecting the populace from external threat, whether through immigration or terrorism, rather than with any recognisable conception of citizenship as a political and legal bond. Finally, citizenship status is now highly variable in terms of the 45 See e.g. Revenko v SSHD [2000] EWCA Civ 500, MA v SSHD [2005] UKAIT 00161; KA (statelessness: meaning and relevance) [2008] UKAIT 00042, MM and FH (Stateless Palestinians, KK, IH, HE reaffirmed) Lebanon CG [2008] UKAIT 00014 46 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/14/uk-jihadists-citizenship-laws-human-rights 47 See the submission of Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill to the Joint Committee on Human Rights: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/GSGGDeprivationCitizenshipRevDft.pdf 18 RSCAS/EUDO-CIT-CR 2014/1 - © 2014 Authors