Court of Appeal decides case concerning deprivation of citizenship decision taken on the grounds of fraud

Court of Appeal decides case concerning deprivation of citizenship decision taken on the grounds of fraud

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) from a decision of the Upper Tribunal (“UT”), in a case concerning a decision by SSHD to deprive Mr Daci of his British citizenship under s.40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“BNA 1981”).

Mr Daci had applied for asylum and a Home Office Travel Document using a false name, date of birth and nationality, and he later successfully applied to naturalise as a British citizen using the same false identity. Once his real identity came to light, SSHD made a deprivation of citizenship decision on the grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of a material fact pursuant to s.40(3) of the BNA 1981.

The appeal before the Court of Appeal raised an issue about whether SSHD had exercised the discretion provided by section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (“BNA 1981”) and had provided sufficient reasons for the exercise of that discretion, when deciding to deprive Mr Daci of his British citizenship.

This appeal was heard by the same constitution of the Court of Appeal which heard the appeal in Chaudhry v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 16 (in which Julia Smyth and Harriet Wakeman also acted for SSHD, led by David Blundell KC). In its judgment in Chaudhry, the Court set out the proper approach to appeals under s.40A of the BNA 1981 from decisions of the Secretary of State made pursuant to s.40(3) of the BNA 1981 (for further details of that decision see here).

In Daci, the Court of Appeal allowed SSHD’s appeal, finding that:

1. It was apparent from a fair reading of SSHD’s deprivation decision letter that SSHD knew of the existence of the statutory discretion, exercised that discretion, and gave sufficient reasons for exercising the discretion against Mr Daci; and,
2. SSHD’s decision was consistent with the relevant policy and was not otherwise unlawful or disproportionate at common law.

Accordingly, the UT’s decision was set aside and remade, and Mr Daci’s appeal against SSHD’s deprivation decision was dismissed. Mr Daci’s appeal was remitted back to the UT solely to determine the issue of the compatibility of the deprivation decision with Mr Daci’s rights under Article 8 ECHR and the lawfulness of the decision pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998.

The judgment can be found here.

Julia Smyth and Harriet Wakeman acted for the successful Secretary of State for the Home Department.