SN/ 16 7/2020
IN THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION APPEALS COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP
25 February 2020
Secretary of State for the Home Department
On the Appellant’s application for an anonymity order pursuant to rule 39(5)(h) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure} Rules 2003 and for an order restraining publication pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (‘the application’)
On the Legal Representatives having been notified of the application by email at 16.31 on Friday 31January 2020
On considering the documents consisting of an application notice, explanatory note, witness statement of Anne McMurdie and legal submissions (‘the documents’) lodged in accordance with paragraph 28 of the Commission’s Practice Note on
Anonymity Orders and Related Measures (‘the Practice Note’)
It is ordered that:
1. The Appellant be granted anonymity in relation to the conduct of proceedings in the Commission and be known in these proceedings as C3.
2. Nothing may be published which, directly or indirectly identifies C3 as an Appellant in these proceedings before the Commission.
3. There be liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to the Commission, to the Appellant, to the Secretary of State and to the Legal Representatives (as defined in the Practice Note).
4. This order continues until the OPEN judgment has been handed down in this appeal, or further order in the meantime, unless the Appellant indicates to the Commission, as soon as the OPEN judgment Is circulated in draft, that she intends to apply for it to continue after the OPEN judgment is handed down, and applies to the Commission, before that judgment is handed down, for directions for the determination of any such application.
1. The Applicant is a former British citizen, who left the United Kingdom in or around July 2014. In November 2019 the Respondent served notice of her intention to deprive the applicant of her citizenship. The Respondent then made a deprivation order. The deprivation decision was based on national security grounds. The Applicant was assessed as having travelled to Syria and to be aligned with ISIL. The decision was made on the footing that it would not make the Applicant stateless. Her case, in part, is that it did have that effect.
2. The Applicant contends that if her identity was made public in this appeal, it would put her at a real risk of mistreatment contrary to article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’) where she is now, from those who disapprove violently of actions such as an appeal, and by the authorities of the other country of which the Respondent contends she is a citizen, were she to go there.
3. The risk of harm breaching article 2 or 3 of the ECHR, she contends, also affects her minor British children. She argues that the publication of the her identity would also put her children at a high risk of adverse publicity, stigma and verbal and physical reprisal if they were to return to the United Kingdom, because they would be perceived to be associated with extremist Islam, both while the appeal is pending, and afterwards. It would inhibit their safe and effective reintegration in the United Kingdom and might cause them psychological harm. The public disclosure of their identity, she contends. would also breach their Article 8 rights to private life.
4. The Commission is not in a position, at this stage of the appeal, to decide whether the risks on which the Applicant relies will materialise. It has to assume that those risks might materialise. The chance that those risks might materialise outweighs the article 1 0 rights of the public and the media, and justifies the incursion into the principle of open justice which is made by this order.