Court of Appeal upholds SIAC decision on correct approach in deprivation appeals

In what was described by the Court of Appeal as “the fourth case to reach this court in the wake of R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] UKSC 7” three appellants have lost their appeal against deprivation of citizenship and a fourth has lost their appeal against exclusion from the UK. All the Home Secretary’s decisions in this case were based on an assessment that the appellants were involved in serious organised crime. The case is D5 & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 957. 

In contrast to Begum and the more recent U3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 1 where the assessment leading to deprivation of citizenship was based on the risk to national security, in this case the decisions were made on conducive grounds based on the Home Secretary’s assessment that the appellants were involved in serious organised crime. The issue was whether the same approach for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission as set out in U3 applies where the decision is based on an assessment that the person is involved in serious organised crime.

SIAC rejected the argument made by the appellants that this case could be distinguished from the approach in national security deprivation cases as set out by the Supreme Court in Begum because the deprivation decisions were made for a different reason. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that:

SIAC must take the same approach to all appeals to it against decisions to deprive an appellant of his British citizenship on the grounds that it is conducive to the public good, and in which the Secretary of State relies in whole or in part on material which cannot be disclosed in the public interest. There is no basis in the statutory language for distinguishing between the different facets of the public good on which the Secretary of State may rely in making such a decision.

This means that SIAC will carry out a public law review of the Home Secretary’s decision in these cases, rather a full merits-based appeal, and that future risk can be taken into account in decision making.