Baroness Deech

There are plans to remove passports, with their accompanying entitlements, from those Britons who have gone abroad for jihadist purposes or return here after such exploits. Although it has been widely reported that this cannot be done under international law, there appears to be no international treaty that the UK has signed that would prevent this action. Deprivation is permitted under s.66 of the Immigration Act 2014, even if the result would be statelessness, provided that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the affected person is able to acquire the nationality of another state. The whole situation is explained in a Parliamentary briefing available here – If the action of deprivation were carried out, and challenged under human rights law, then Article 17 of the European Convention, repeated in our Human Rights Act 1998, is relevant:

 “Prohibition of abuse of rights

Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”

That exemption may well be successfully pleaded by the government in defence. The right to retain British citizenship can hardly be relied on as a human right if the claimant wants to return in order to kill or injure people here.

12 comments for “Passportless

  1. MilesJSD
    06/09/2014 at 8:43 pm

    Perhaps the United Nations should set up at least two UN-States:-

    one for those who are declared or made stateless by any Nation-State
    [such as your jihad-terrorists passport-invalidation/confiscation, and-or ‘persona non grata classification]

    and one for individuals needing a sanctuary-timeframe and peaceful-life-planning permissions that their nation-state or enveloping-local-community will not provide and would thus have made itself to many or any individuals trying to build a healthier-habits lifestyle “corpus non gratus” (whatever the Latin is for an ‘unacceptable-nation-state’
    [I for one could readily countenance applying for such as things are and are ominously going downhill into not only in ther UK but evidently in almost all if not all other countries]
    [Would I need to declare myself a “Dissident” first, ‘though ?]

  2. maude elwes
    08/09/2014 at 9:11 am

    But, the true underlying and insoluble problem with all this legislation of one sort or another, is, we are ‘all’ now considered suspected terrorists. And all in the loop of secret courts and what they consist of.

    Just as big, if not a bigger in the short term, is the threat to us all a government who is too afraid to tell us what they have done to us as a nation, through policies they simply refuse to either look at or amend. Lets take this issue of immigration altogether. Our consecutive governments imported into our unbelievably submissive culture those who they must have known would be avidly against our way of life on just about every level. Government decided they would learn to love us and we would be safe.

    On top of that, they increasingly pushed for more of any culture no matter what they spouted, how they treated their own group of people and what it would mean to our daily life, as well as turned a blind eye to any diseases they were rampantly bringing into the country. That little hidden fact we are not supposed to know about.

    I saw a newspaper article yesterday that told us the government intends or already has allowed in 21,000 Nigerian African students to our phoney colleges even though the Ebola virus is at the height of its power in their country. Do they seriously believe none of those coming into our cities will be free of this dreadful disease, when they haven’t got checks available at our borders to stop this? And, I may add, not simply Ebola. The worst of all this being, they infect our children as well as the adult population.

    The import of Ebola is far more dangerous than those returning from the killing fields of Iraq or Syria. At least in the short term. So, the problem lies not with one set of immigrants but many. Why has this continued under a government that was elected on the promise of stopping it all?

    And as far as the returning jihadis are concerned, they will not be stateless if they lose the British section of their European passport. They have the option of going to another European State, or, as they should do, apply for citizenship where they were willing to kill for their cause. And, as they will still have the right to a family life, by those families joining them where their hearts are, they will be able to live happily in a society whose beliefs correspond with their own.

    • Lord Blagger
      09/09/2014 at 6:08 pm

      Palestinians are stateless. UK won’t agree to them being a state.

      So the no passport stateless bit is a complete red herring

  3. Croft
    08/09/2014 at 3:11 pm

    “here appears to be no international treaty that the UK has signed that would prevent this action. ”

    Are you sure? The Hilal Al-Jedda case seems to say the opposite.

    On your other points I have limited faith in the sensible application of the ECHR based on past precedence. That issue aside we would seem to be have applied exceptions to the statelessness conventions (1954 & ’61) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is probably not enforcible in domestic law.

    The present legislation looks to be trying to sidestep the conventions but I fancy it will fail for the same reasons as above. The courts will strike it down however it is worded and notwithstanding derogations.

    • Baroness Deech
      Baroness Deech
      09/09/2014 at 3:38 pm

      I would be grateful for a reference to the Supreme Ct decision in this case; and to what happened afterwards. The internet reveals that the Home Secretary stripped him of his nationality for a second time, but I cannot see a sequel. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

      • Croft
        10/09/2014 at 1:10 pm

        It tricky following the paperwork. Whoever keeps the Supreme Court weblinks up-to-date needs to fix things – its [broken]. That has the case number in the link. There is a bit on

        • JH
          10/09/2014 at 6:48 pm
          • maude elwes
            11/09/2014 at 10:25 am

            Reading through this link to the court document put up by JH exposes a difficult to understand, or indeed, a reasoning that the appellant was in any way stateless. It was abundantly obvious to any ordinary mind, let alone one who is considered above average ability, that this person was a citizen of Iraq. He was born in Iraq, came to the UK and made an application for British nationality, which was granted, rendering him a dual national. He then returned to Iraq and by so doing automatically regained his citizenship of that country under Iraqi law. Therefore, he was entitled to re-apply to be granted a further right to again become a national of the UK, but, not to assume the removal of this UK nationality status rendered him stateless. As it did not.

            The overriding line in this law is, the court may deprive a person of citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied deprivation is conducive to the public good. Therefore, nothing else was of any importance, as it was clearly established he was not going to be rendered stateless because he was an Iraqi national.

            So, that is that, from my point of view. And I suggest that has to be the point of view of anyone who was unbiased.

        • Baroness Deech
          Baroness Deech
          10/09/2014 at 11:09 pm

          Thanks. I read it and concluded that the UK had carefully avoided ratifying any treaty that would prevent deprivation of nationality on the ground of public interest where it would leave the person stateless. That limitation is in domestic law, and so could be repealed. But I may have misunderstood.

          • Croft
            11/09/2014 at 9:48 am

            The case seemed to turn on a very small point but I have only scanned it. However I don’t see it closed off action of the basis of ECHR cases when ‘arbitrary denial’ of nationality has been constrewed as potentially coming under Article 8 (a ridiculously elastic interpretation to my mind) We already have domestic precedence here where convicted criminals have successfully evaded deportation on the basis of Article 8 effectively driving a coach and horses though deportation law. As the domestic courts has set this precedent I can’t see why they would not apply the same logic for someone who loses citizenship (and would therefore be deported) if they have any ‘family life’ here unless the state gives them permanent leave to remain – which rather defeats the object of the removal of citizenship.

  4. MilesJSD
    08/09/2014 at 10:41 pm

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1948 ?] has hardly been 50% implemented,
    and as well as in ‘domestic’ law needs to be made deliverable and enforceable in other ‘law’, and ‘practice’ as well – but first needs to be scrutinised and brought into both present and longest-term future necessity and sufficiency.

    And a propos
    [“] our governments imported…
    [but it was the Queen who said to the whole Commonwealth “Come, there’s plenty of room at the Inn]

    into our unbelievably submissive culture…
    [unbelievably reactionary against both Individual and mutual Healthier-Habits-Building, which you can’t call “submissive” but rather “conservative”, surely]

    those who …would be avidly against our {British} way of life…
    [possibly our British Way Of Life needs to become both a “universal” one and resilient enough to contain any sustain-worthy culture ? Problem: Monarch as Defender of All Faiths ?]

    Tenants Training Days are often held, across Britain, and one I attended in Totnes focused upon “Immigrants” and their “assimilation”; and it was getting bogged down by “They must leave their lives behind them and fit into our way of life…”

    The question was asked “So what would be our List of Common Needs and Cooperative-Methods for meeting all of our human needs ?”
    and a dead silence fell.

    The instance was put forward “Clean drinking water”, but more dead silence.

    “For simple instance then, at these tables only three people have a glass of water, surely we could all have been having a glass of water available ?”
    At which a staff sidesperson interjected “There’s plenty of cups and a water tap out the back in the kitchen just help yourself”

    (Various rumbles and cries of assent) then
    “What d’you mean by ‘our needs’? We all know what our needs are; these foreigners must fit into our ways”.

    And the Chair plunged us on into the next item on the agenda.

    • maude elwes
      09/09/2014 at 11:42 am

      You know Miles, I suggest you put your immigrant voice on the Australian websites as that is where you hail from. They have a massive island that can accommodate the millions you are expecting our British people to pay for and love, regardless of how many times they get hit in the bread basket of politicians who feel we are an endless pit of taxable idiots just waiting to love the world and of course feed them. Whilst those, akin to you, who sing about it on every stage across the globe, leave these shores very promptly with their money when same tax man comes calling on their ‘off shore’ pile in order to suck it up for these wonderful ‘let them know it’s Christmas’ brigade. I feel it’s about time we knew it was Christmas and our own British starving and homeless people were put to the forefront for a change.

      Which brings me to how the God particle fits into all of this ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘good samaritan’ jargon we get shoved in our faces on an hourly basis. However, same good samaritan bunch cry against the ‘God of Christianity’ that sells this message, condemning it in every passage it writes and speaks. The only God we cannot speak against in this wonderful freedom we live under being only set aside for those imported on mass to the point where our entire system is collapsing in front of our eyes and we have to listen to clowns telling us we have to live a sustainable life or in other words, in the poverty of Gandhi to make life ‘fair’ to all. Especially those Henry Kissinger referred to as useless eaters.

      From there we move on to democracy. That little thing we are all supposed to be fighting for across the entire planet, as our PM and his good friend from across the big pond, kill in its name at a deafening rate. Yet nobody appears to put two and two together as we remember our own history where our people have for decades been calling for mass immigration to stop. And now, only those parties who promise they will control it or put and end to it have a hope in hell of winning any election. What do you think UKIP is all about. And why Rees Mogg is taking a feeler on, if we join up with Farage and promise an out of Europe referendum, then maybe we will be able to remain in power long enough to keep the mob from the door. Some hopes they have of that. Because if Farage falls for that, it will be the biggest of all betrayals the British will know once and for all that they are being fed to lions for another hooray Henry to line his empty pockets.

      Miles, you lived for, what did you say, 32 years in Australia, and with such a wonderful country, a Commonwealth country your defender why come to the tine UK and feel you can save us all here when you had the opportunity to mak it big in a big country? Show them the way they are more flexible in their love of the good life than we British. We are a more down home kind of people, who, in general, instinctively know what is in our best interests, which is not being an open door to the world of the useless eaters. We cannot afford it. We are broke and living off our future and our children don’t deserve more ‘flower power’ sitting in the mud with closed eyes speakers directing our thoughts away from our own needs any longer.

      It’s time our politicians listened to the voice of the herd that keeps them getting rotund sitting on the rumps in the talking shop of subsidised booze, for a change. Look at what they are offering us as leader for the next election. A dirty eater, with a London Spiv as a side kick, both of them badly trained in their business of choice and you want us to pull in our horns. Do leave off. Or, have you got it in mind as you wrote on another thread, the best thing we could do is have you take up euthanasia for us as a way of life to make room for more of you from that dried up old island with its old ten pound welcome mat drawing you in until you found your way here to get away from its shark infested waters.

      And the politicians continue to do what they have done for decades in this country, ignore the voice of their voters.

      The outcome.

      The discussion

      And the cost.

Comments are closed.