166 Mantu detention.10 If the second nationality is that of an EU Member State, the person would be subjected to a different legal regime,11 but up to now most citizenship deprivation orders involve persons whose second nationality was not that of an EU state. There are cases where the Secretary of State has made a citizenship deprivation order while the person concerned was outside of the UK, followed by an exclusion order that prevented the person from re-entering the UK. Since exclusion orders are not open to appeal, a person who wishes to contest his citizenship deprivation has to pursue such an appeal from abroad.12 Citizenship deprivation powers were further expanded with the adoption of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.13 Although the proposal of the 2006 Act was introduced before the 2005 London bombings, its adoption by the UK Parliament was clearly under the influence of the terrorist attacks. Immediately after the attacks, the British Prime Minister announced a twelvepoint plan of anti-terror measures that included citizenship deprivation and a list of unacceptable behaviours that constitute grounds for deportation and exclusion from the UK. In respect of citizenship deprivation, the 2006 Act expanded again the power to deprive under Section 40(2) since the Secretary of State may make such an order if he is satisfied that such deprivation of citizenship is ‘conducive to the public good’. The prohibition of creating statelessness as a result of such an order and the right to appeal were retained. The UK government clarified that it intended to use the list of unacceptable behaviours as grounds for citizenship deprivation.14 This is important since 10 11 12 13 14 G1 v SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 867; L1 v SSHD, SC/100/2010, date of judgment 3 December 2010. Exclusion orders cannot be made in respect of UK citizens. Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/ EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L 158. G1 v SSHD [2012] EWCA Civ 867. In this case, the court decided that the right to an incountry appeal has to be guaranteed by legislation and that the 2004 changes have expressly removed such possibility. Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 [United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland], 2006 Chapter 13, 30 March 2006 (referred to as ‘the 2006 Act’). Mr. McNulty in House of Commons Standing Committee E (pt 1), col 254. The list includes actions such as writing, producing, publishing or distributing material, public speaking, including preaching, running a website, using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader to express views which the government considers to foment terrorism or seek to provoke others to terrorist acts, justify or glorify terrorism, foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts, foster tilburg law review 19 (2014) 163-170