Case No. SN/172/2020
IN THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATION
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL AGAINST
DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP
7 September 2020
The 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 on 29 July 2020 by email, and not having objected to the application
On considering the documents consisting of an application notice, explanatory note, witness statement of Anne McMurdie and legal submissions 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 C8.
2. Nothing may be published which, directly or indirectly, identifies C8 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.
BY THE COMMISSION Elisabeth Laing.
Dated this 7th day of September 2020
1.The Appellant left the United Kingdom in or around August 2014. In April 2017 the Respondent (‘the Secretary of State’) served a notice of his intention to deprive the applicant of her British citizenship (‘the Decision’). The Secretary of State later made an order depriving the Appellant of her British citizenship on the grounds of national security grounds (‘the Order’). C8 was assessed as having travelled to Syria and as being aligned with ISIL.
2.The applicant argues that the Order makes her stateless. She also disputes the assessments that she presents a risk to the national security and that the deprivation is conducive to the public good, and challenges the Decision on various other grounds.
3. She contends that if she were identified publicly, that would put her at risk, where she is now, of suffering ill treatment violating Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and would, if she were returned to the country of which the Secretary of State contends she is a citizen, put her at such risk from the authorities there.
4. She also contends that her minor children would be exposed to similar risks, and that if her identity were published, this would expose her children to a high risk of adverse publicity, stigma and verbal and physical reprisals if they were to return to the United Kingdom because of that would create a perception that they were associated with extremist Islam, during, and after, the appeal proceedings. That would adversely affect their integration into the United Kingdom. It could cause them psychological harm.
5. She argues that public disclosure of her identity would result in a breach of her children’s article 8 to private life.
6. The Commission is not in a position to decide, on the basis of the documents which support the application, whether or not the Appellant’s fears are well-founded. It must assume, at this stage, that they are or might be.
7. The risk that the Appellant’s fears will turn out to be well-founded justifies the encroachment into the principle of open justice which this Order represents and its interference with the Article 10 rights of the media and the public.