2017] Citizenship Stripping Laws in the UK, Canada and Australia 11 exercise of appeal rights very difficult.40 The rights are also difficult to exercise where a person is stripped of their citizenship while they are outside UK territory.41 Even where appeal rights are exercised, as Lucia Zedner has noted, their utility is ‘weakened by the tendency of judges to defer to the executive in respect of decisions relating to national security’.42 Additionally, the wide breadth of the Home Secretary’s revocation powers significantly reduces the likelihood that any appeals brought will be successful.43 2 Justifications Two justifications were invoked to support the UK’s 21st-century citizenship stripping expansions. The first was symbolic, and was reflected in presentations of the expanded laws as affirming particular features of the state–citizen relationship. For instance, statements made in Parliament and by the government in relation to the revocation laws described citizenship as a ‘privilege’ rather than a right, and emphasised that citizens owe a duty of allegiance to the state.44 40 See Zedner, ‘Citizenship Deprivation, Security and Human Rights’ (n 12) 237. 41 See Alice Ross and Patrick Galey, ‘Rise in Citizenship-Stripping as Government Cracks Down on UK Fighters in Syria’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (London, 23 December 2013) <www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/12/23/rise-in-citizenship-stripping-as-governmentcracks-down-on-uk-fighters-in-syria/>, archived at <https://perma.cc/5KZF-23WA>, discussed in McGuinness and Gower (n 34) 11. 42 Zedner, ‘Citizenship Deprivation, Security and Human Rights’ (n 12) 230. 43 A survey of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission’s published decisions reinforces this. Since 2007, there have been 10 appeals in which the Commission has examined the validity of a decision to deprive an individual of their citizenship. All but two of these appeals were predominantly concerned with the question of whether the deprivation decision rendered the appellant stateless: ‘Outcomes 2007 Onwards’, Tribunals Judiciary (Web Page) <http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/#top>, archived at <https://perma.cc/S48P-S9EZ>. The introduction in 2014 of a power to deprive a person of citizenship even when statelessness may ensue minimises the potential for future challenges to be brought on this ground. The two appeals that did not concern questions of statelessness were, notably, both dismissed by the Commission: M2 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Special Immigration Appeals Commission, Appeal No SC/124/2014, Mr Justice Irwin, Upper Tribunal Judge Southern and Dame Holt, 22 December 2015); K2 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Special Immigration Appeals Commission, Appeal No SC/96/2010, Mr Justice Irwin, Upper Tribunal Judge Jordon and Mr Fell, 22 December 2015). 44 See, eg, United Kingdom, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 24 April 2002, vol 384, col 413 (Marsha Singh); United Kingdom, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 6 January 2015, vol 590, cols 165–210; ‘The UK’s Unacceptable Obsession with Stripping British Citizens of Their UK Nationality’, Andy Worthington (Blog Post, 25 March 2014) <www.andyworthington.co.uk/2014/03/25/the-uks-unacceptable-obsession-with-strippingbritish-citizens-of-their-uk-nationality/>, archived at <https://perma.cc/E994-VNKW>. Advance Copy