Applying Begum Principles To Non-National Security Deprivation Appeals

• Law Firm: Richmond Chambers Immigration Barristers
• Subject Matter: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Immigration, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, General Immigration
• Author: Mr Alex Papasotiriou
• Published date: 24 October 2023

In its OPEN Judgment in D5, D6 & D7 v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Deprivation/exclusion - Substantive) SC/176/2020, SC/177/2020 & SC/178/2020, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), confirmed that the principles laid out in (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] UKSC 7 regarding deprivation appeals apply, not only to national security cases, but generally to cases where deprivation of citizenship has been deemed conducive to the public good.

Background

The linked cases involved the appeals against the decisions to deprive D5 and D6 of their British citizenship and a review against the direction of the exclusion of D7 from the UK. The decisions/direction were made on the basis that deprivation and exclusion, respectively, was assessed to be conducive to the public good having regard to their involvement in serious and organised crime. The Secretary of State certified that in making each of these decisions, she had taken account of information which, in her opinion, should not be made public in the public interest. In view of this, the appeals and review came under SIAC's jurisdiction, by way of sections 2B and 2C of the SIAC Act 1997, respectively.

The Legal Framework

Section 2C of the SIAC Act 1997 makes it clear that exclusion directions are subject to an application to SIAC to set aside the direction, in determining which, SIAC must apply the principles which would be applied in judicial review proceedings. Conversely, section 2B refers to appeals against deprivation decisions. Notwithstanding this, in Begum it was held that these are not full-merit appeals, but appeals where the Secretary of State's assessment ought to be considered by applying public law principles.

Applicability of Begum Principles

Counsel for the appellants submitted that the principles identified in Begum only applied in national security cases, which involved an assessment of future risk to national security. In contrast, D5 and D6's case concerned whether the appellants had been involved in serious and organised crime, i.e. past events, not future risk. It was, thus, argued that the Secretary of State had to prove the facts on which she relied for the deprivation decisions.

SIAC disagreed and held that the Begum principles applied to the case, even though it did not involve national security. This was because of: 1) the nature of the decision, 2) the statutory framework and 3) the principles of democratic accountability and...