DOCSLIB.ORG

Mr Al-Jedda, Deprivation of Citizenship, and International Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mr Al-Jedda, Deprivation of Citizenship, and International Law Mr Al-Jedda, Deprivation of Citizenship, and International Law Guy S. Goodwin-Gill1 Revised draft of a paper presented at a Seminar at Middlesex University on 14 February 2014 1. The Background in Brief Mr Al-Jedda was a refugee from Iraq. He was granted asylum in the United Kingdom and duly acquired British citizenship by naturalisation; as a consequence, he lost his Iraqi citizenship by operation of law. During the course of the war with Iraq, he was detained there and held by the British military on security grounds. He was released in December 2006, shortly after the Secretary of State made an order purporting to deprive him of his British citizenship. He appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in 2008, where argument focused on, among other issues, whether Occupying Powers are competent to legislate on nationality, and on the meaning and scope of various legal instruments, including the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) decreed by the Coalition Provisional Authority and the 2006 Iraqi Nationality Law. SIAC rejected his appeal, finding that he was an Iraqi citizen. This was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which referred the matter back to SIAC. SIAC again found against Mr Al-Jedda, but was again overruled by the Court of Appeal which held that he had automatically lost Iraqi citizenship on acquiring British citizenship, and that he had not automatically regained it either under the TAL or the 2006 Law. Consequently, he could not lawfully be deprived of his British citizenship, as this would render him stateless. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that under section 40 of the British Nationality Act, she could be ‘satisfied’ that the making of a deprivation order would not render the individual concerned stateless if there was another nationality ‘option’, for example, if that person ‘could’ apply elsewhere, and ‘would be’ granted citizenship. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in October 2013, finding the argument ‘unrealistic’. One simple question was involved: Did the individual possess another nationality at the date of deprivation, or not? The alternative argument was, ‘a gloss as substantial as it was unwarranted...’2 1 Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford; Professor of International Refugee Law, University of Oxford; Barrister, Blackstone Chambers. 2 [2013] UKSC 62. 2 2. The UK’s role in ‘combatting’ statelessness The United Kingdom has long been active in promoting the reduction and elimination of statelessness. At the first (1959) conference preceding the conclusion of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Mr Ross has set out the UK’s position: ‘To deprive persons of their nationality so as to render them stateless should certainly be an exceptional step and the freedom of States to deprive persons of their nationality should be severely circumscribed by means of appropriate clauses in the convention...’ Eleventh Meeting of the Committee of the Whole, 8 April 1959: UN doc. A/CONF.9/C.1/SR.11, 7-8. At the Fourteenth Meeting on 10 April 1959, Mr Harvey said that the UK delegation, ‘would have preferred to exclude altogether the possibility of deprivation of nationality in the case of natural-born nationals...’: UN doc. A/CONF.9/C.1/SR.14, 3. At the Fifteenth Meeting on 11 April 1959, Mr Ross added that the UK would be willing to consider, ‘a general paragraph stipulating that a contracting party, at the time of ratifying the convention, might make a reservation in respect of deprivation of citizenship relating to any existing provision of its law. However, the United Kingdom delegation believed that fewer cases of statelessness would arise if a short list of grounds on which a national could be deprived of his nationality were included in the convention’: UN doc. A/CONF.9/C.1/SR.15, 6. The Conference reconvened two years later. In observations submitted on 18 May 1961, the UK indicated that, ‘In the interests of limiting the permissible grounds to the greatest extent to which agreement is practicable, Her Majesty’s Government would be prepared to accept a provision which included only one other ground – disloyalty or treachery in the case of a naturalised citizen’: UN doc. A/CONF.9/10, 9 June 1961. Article 8 in its final form owed much to the UK’s initiatives. Mr Ross, speaking at the Sixteenth Plenary Meeting on 16 August 1961, noted that instances of deprivation were rare, but nonetheless, ‘the Conference still had the duty of doing its upmost to eliminate that minor cause of statelessness as well...’ The UK’s compromise text, ‘admitted no grounds for deprivation other than those already specified in the current law of the Contracting 3 States... [I]t attempted to overcome... objections... by restricting the causes for deprivation of nationality to certain well-defined categories’: UN doc. A/CONF.9/SR.16, 11 October 1961, 2, 3-4. A working group on Article 8 appointed by the Conference, with Mr Harvey of the United Kingdom as rapporteur, agreed a text (UN doc. A/CONF.9/L.86, 23 August 1961). Apart from minor drafting changes and the deletion of one paragraph, this draft was that adopted by the Conference in final form. Mr Harvey commented at the Twentieth Plenary Meeting on 23 August 1961: ‘... There had been considerable discussion as to whether or not separate grounds of deprivation or nationality should be applied to natural-born and to naturalized persons. The feeling of the Group had been that the distinction was not a happy one, and it had concluded that it was unnecessary to grant extended grounds for deprivation in the case of naturalized persons. Hence the grounds mentioned applied to both types of cases. The effect of the article was to “freeze” the grounds of deprivation at the date on which the State acceded to the Convention, and to limit them to certain specified types...’: UN doc. A/CONF.9/SR.20, 11 October 1961, 2-3. As finally agreed, Article 8 of the 1961 Convention established the basic principle that there should be no deprivation of nationality if it resulted in statelessness, but with a number limited exceptions. ‘Article 8 1. A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, a person may be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State: (a) In the circumstances in which, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 7, it is permissible that a person should lose his nationality; (b) Where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time: 4 (a) That, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the person: (i) Has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or (ii) Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State; (b) That the person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State. 4. A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation permitted by paragraphs 2 or 3 of this article except in accordance with law, which shall provide for the person concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body.’ The United Kingdom’s made the following declaration under article 8(3): ‘... in accordance with paragraph 3 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 8, the United Kingdom retains the right to deprive a naturalised person of his nationality on the following grounds, being grounds existing in United Kingdom law at the present time: that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to Her Britannic Majesty, the person (i) Has, in disregard of an express prohibition of Her Britannic Majesty, rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or (ii) Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of Her Britannic Majesty.’ As the UK representative, Mr Harvey, noted during negotiations, ‘The effect of the article was to “freeze” the grounds of deprivation at the date on which the State acceded to the Convention, and to limit them to certain specified types.’ In 1966, when the United Kingdom ratified the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, deprivation of citizenship was governed by section 20 of the British 5 Nationality Act 1948. This provided for deprivation in the case of fraud (section 20(2))3, and also that, ‘(3) ... the Secretary of State may by order deprive any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who is a naturalised person of that citizenship if he is satisfied that that citizen– (a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards His Majesty ; or (b) has, during any war in which His Majesty was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business that was to his knowledge carried on in such a manner as to assist an enemy in that war ; or (c) has within five years after becoming naturalised been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hoem Office Ministers' Return Jan-Mar 2011
    HOME OFFICE JANUARY – MARCH 2011 GIFTS GIVEN OVER £140 Rt Hon Theresa May – Home Secretary Date gift From Gift Value given Nil Return Damian Green – Minister for Immigration Date gift From Gift Value given Nil Return Rt Hon Nick Herbert – Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice Date gift From Gift Value given Nil Return 1 Rt Hon Baroness Neville-Jones – Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism Date gift From Gift Value given Nil Return James Brokenshire – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime Prevention Date gift From Gift Value given Nil Return Lynne Featherstone – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Equalities and Criminal Information Date gift From Gift Value given Nil Return 2 GIFTS RECEIVED OVER £140 Rt Hon Theresa May – Home Secretary Date gift From Gift Value Outcome received Nil Return Damian Green – Minister for Immigration Date gift From Gift Value Outcome received Nil Return Rt Hon Nick Herbert – Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice Date gift From Gift Value Outcome received Nil Return Rt Hon Baroness Neville-Jones – Minister for Security and Counter-Terrorism Date gift From Gift Value Outcome received Nil Return 3 James Brokenshire – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime Prevention Date gift From Gift Value Outcome received Nil Return Lynne Featherstone – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Equalities and Criminal Information Date gift From Gift Value Outcome received Nil Return 4 HOSPITALITY1 Rt Hon Theresa May - Home Secretary Date Name of Organisation Type of Hospitality Received
    [Show full text]
  • Children's Right to a Nationality
    OPEN SOCIETY JUSTICE INITIATIVE Children’s right to a nationality Statelessness affects more than 12 million people around the world, among whom the most vulnerable are children. The Open Society Justice Initiative estimates that as many as 5 million may be minors. The consequences of lack of nationality are numerous and severe. Many stateless children grow up in extreme poverty and are denied basic rights and services such as access to education and health care. Stateless children‟s lack of identity documentation limits their freedom of movement. They are subject to arbitrary deportations and prolonged detentions, are vulnerable to social exclusion, trafficking and exploitation—including child labor. Despite its importance, children‟s right to a nationality rarely gets the urgent attention it needs. Children’s right to nationality The right to a nationality is protected under At the very least, the right to acquire a nationality under international law. The Universal Declaration of Human the CRC should be understood to mean that children Rights provides a general right to nationality under have a right to nationality in their country of birth if article 15. The international human rights treaties— they do not acquire another nationality from birth—in including the Convention on the Rights of the Child other words, if they would otherwise be stateless. In (CRC) and the International Covenant on Civil and fact, this particular principle is recognized in regional Political Rights (ICCPR)—as well as the Convention on systems as well as in the Convention on the Reduction the Reduction of Statelessness, provide particular norms of Statelessness.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China and the Overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Macao and Southeast Asia
    NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law Volume 5 Article 6 Number 2 Volume 5, Numbers 2 & 3, 1984 1984 The aN tionality Law of the People's Republic of China and the Overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Macao and Southeast Asia Tung-Pi Chen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/ journal_of_international_and_comparative_law Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Chen, Tung-Pi (1984) "The aN tionality Law of the People's Republic of China and the Overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Macao and Southeast Asia," NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law: Vol. 5 : No. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_international_and_comparative_law/vol5/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. THE NATIONALITY LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE OVERSEAS CHINESE IN HONG KONG, MACAO AND SOUTHEAST ASIA TUNG-PI CHEN* INTRODUCTION After thirty years of existence, the Government of the People's Re- public of China (PRC) enacted the long-awaited Nationality Law in 1980.1 Based on the PRC Government's enduring principle of racial and sexual equality, the new law is designed to reduce dual nationality and statelessness by combining the principles of jus sanguinis and jus soli to determine nationality at birth. The need for a Chinese national- ity law had long been recognized, but it was not until the adoption of the "open door" policy in 1978 after the downfall of the "Gang of Four," as well as the institution of codification efforts, that the urgency of the task was recognized.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is Stateless and Why?
    Who is stateless and why?: Exploring how the UN and the international community are addressing statelessness by comparing two case studies of Syrian refugees living in Lebanon and Jordan. Jillian H. Pflederer TC 660H Plan II Honors Program The University of Texas at Austin April 9th, 2019 __________________________________ Dr. Ruth Wasem Clinical Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs Supervising Professor __________________________________ Robert M. Chesney Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the University of Texas School of Law Second Reader 1 Abstract: ​ Author: Jillian H. Pflederer Title: Who is stateless and why?: Exploring how the UN and the international community are addressing statelessness by comparing two case studies of Syrian refugees living in Lebanon and Jordan. Supervising Professor: Dr. Ruth Wasem This thesis will explore how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is addressing statelessness as an international crisis and their #IBelong campaign to eradicate statelessness by 2024. Next, it will define what statelessness is and how someone is determined to be stateless concerning the recommendations of UNHCR and international humanitarian law. Finally, it will focus on two case studies of how statelessness is affecting Jordan and Lebanon. The phenomenon of statelessness is not new. However, since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, statelessness has become prominent among Syrian refugees living in Jordan and Lebanon. Both countries have strict citizenship laws which rule nationality can only pass on to a child through the father. Refugee children born to families with a Syrian father or fathers who died in the conflict are left without a nationality. Many children who fled Syria lack birth certificates and others who are born in refugee camps lack a claim to nationality.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Affairs Committee
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The work of the Immigration Directorates (January– June 2014) Ninth Report of Session 2014- -- 15 Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 17 December 2014 HC 712 [Incorporating HC 501, 2014–15] Published on 20 December 2014 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) (Chair) Ian Austin MP (Labour, Dudley North) Nicola Blackwood MP (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon) James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Michael Ellis MP (Conservative, Northampton North) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Lorraine Fullbrook MP (Conservative, South Ribble) Dr Julian Huppert MP (Liberal Democrat, Cambridge) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham) Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Mr David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) The following were also members of the Committee during the Parliament. Rt Hon Alun Michael (Labour & Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth) Karl Turner MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull East) Steve McCabe MP (Labour, Birmingham Selly Oak) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mark Reckless MP (Conservative, Rochester and Strood) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministerial Departments CABINET OFFICE March 2021
    LIST OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES Including Executive Agencies and Non- Ministerial Departments CABINET OFFICE March 2021 LIST OF MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES INCLUDING EXECUTIVE AGENCIES AND NON-MINISTERIAL DEPARTMENTS CONTENTS Page Part I List of Cabinet Ministers 2-3 Part II Alphabetical List of Ministers 4-7 Part III Ministerial Departments and Responsibilities 8-70 Part IV Executive Agencies 71-82 Part V Non-Ministerial Departments 83-90 Part VI Government Whips in the House of Commons and House of Lords 91 Part VII Government Spokespersons in the House of Lords 92-93 Part VIII Index 94-96 Information contained in this document can also be found on Ministers’ pages on GOV.UK and: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-ministers-and-responsibilities 1 I - LIST OF CABINET MINISTERS The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP Prime Minister; First Lord of the Treasury; Minister for the Civil Service and Minister for the Union The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP Chancellor of the Exchequer The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs; First Secretary of State The Rt Hon Priti Patel MP Secretary of State for the Home Department The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP Minister for the Cabinet Office; Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice The Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP Secretary of State for Defence The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP Secretary of State for Health and Social Care The Rt Hon Alok Sharma MP COP26 President Designate The Rt Hon
    [Show full text]
  • HO Annual Report and Accounts 2020-21
    Annual Report and Accounts 2020-21 (for the year ended 31 March 2021) Annual Report and Accounts 2020-21 (for the year ended 31 March 2021) Accounts presented to the House of Commons pursuant to Section 6(4) of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and Section 2(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 Annual Report presented to the House of Commons by Command of Her Majesty Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 8 July 2021 HC 369 This is part of a series of departmental publications which along with the Main Estimates 2020-21 and the document Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 2020, present the Government’s outturn for 2020-21 and planned expenditure for 2021-22 © Crown copyright 2021 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/official-documents. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at Direct Communication Unit, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF Telephone 0207 035 4848 (09:00-17:00 Mon-Fri) Print ISBN: 978-1-5286-2696-5 CCS0521645808 07/21 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office CONTENTS Contents Home Secretary – Introduction ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Border Audit
    The Border Audit Is the UK border now fit for purpose? A post-Windrush review David Goodhart and Richard Norrie Cover image: Number 10 (edited). Crown Copyright The UK Border Audit Is the UK border now fit for purpose? A post-Windrush review David Goodhart and Richard Norrie Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Alexander Downer, Andrew Feldman, Candida Gertler, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, Peter Wall, Nigel Wright. About the Authors About the Authors David Goodhart is Head of Policy Exchange’s Demography, Immigration and Integration Unit, and Director of the Integration Hub website. He is a former Director of Demos, and former Editor of Prospect magazine, which he founded in 1995. David is a prominent figure in public debate in the UK, as a well-known broadcaster, author, commentator and journalist.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 UN Key Messages on Statelessness the Way Forward
    UN Key Messages on Statelessness The way forward: stronger UN advocacy ahead of a 2019 High-Level Event on Ending Statelessness The problem of statelessness affects millions of people worldwide, with devastating consequences that deprive them of legal rights or basic services, leaving them politically and economically marginalized, discriminated against, and particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The conditions causing statelessness can also give rise to large-scale violence and displacement, as the mass exodus of Rohingya refugees from Myanmar to Bangladesh has demonstrated. An inclusive and just 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that truly leaves no one behind must include stateless persons and those who are at risk of statelessness. In order to take the UN’s experience in addressing statelessness to scale across the UN system, the Secretary- General has updated his Guidance Note and issued a set of Key Messages (below) for UN entities to take joint and decisive action. Achievements made by States in addressing statelessness will be showcased at an October 2019 high-level event in Geneva where States will be asked to pledge concrete actions that will lead to substantial results by 2024.1 UN entities are asked to advocate with States toward tangible progress and firm pledges. This advocacy should include coordinated UNCT efforts at the field level as well as a strong Headquarters voice, drawing on the messages below. Key Messages (General) ➢ Ending statelessness worldwide is an ambitious but achievable goal with strong momentum behind it. UNHCR has launched a Campaign to End Statelessness by 2024 (#IBelong Campaign), and with UNICEF, has formed a Coalition on Every Child’s Right to a Nationality.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street House of Commons Ottawa on K1A 0A6 Canada
    Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street House of Commons Ottawa ON K1A 0A6 Canada April 13, 2016 Re: Bill C-6 and Amendments related to Statelessness Dear, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration The Canadian Centre on Statelessness requests that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration take the opportunity to consider the perspective of the stateless community in Canada as it assesses Bill C-6. Canada’s Citizenship Act presents several challenges with respect to statelessness and stateless persons in Canada in terms of discrimination and access to justice. International law holds that a person is deemed stateless if no state considers her or him to be a citizen under the “operation of its law”. This means a stateless person does not have a nationality or legal identity and lives without basic human rights. The lived reality of statelessness, or not being a citizen of any country, is often described as a life in the shadows and without hope. Statelessness affects an estimated 10 million people worldwide. Stateless people may be refugees, or they may not. Statelessness can occur in myriad of ways. They may have lost their citizenship when the country they were born in was in conflict. Women are disproportionately affected as many lose their citizenship when they marry a foreigner. Statelessness can occur because of ethnic discrimination against minority groups in nationality legislation, birth registration laws, and conflicting laws between states. In Canada, statelessness can occur in two ways: one is in the context of migration which includes those who are stateless when they arrive in Canada, and those who become stateless after they arrive in Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence and Security Committee – Annual Report 2010–2011
    Intelligence and Security Committee – Annual Report 2010–2011 Intelligence and Security Committee – Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2010–2011 Chairman: The Rt. Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, MP Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2010–2011 Chairman: The Rt. Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, MP Intelligence Services Act 1994 Chapter 13 Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty July 2011 Cm 8114 £20.50 © Crown copyright 2011 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] This publication is available for download at www.official- documents.gov.uk. This document is also available from our website at http://isc.independent.gov.uk ISBN: 9780101811422 Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2441486 07/11 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. From: The Chairman, The Rt. Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, MP INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ ISC 2010/11/160 7 July 2011 The Rt. Hon. David Cameron, MP Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA I enclose the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Annual Report for 2010–2011.
    [Show full text]
  • Migrants Resource Centre, University of Liverpool Law Clinic, European Network on Statelessness, and Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion
    Migrants Resource Centre, University of Liverpool Law Clinic, European Network on Statelessness, and Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion Joint Submission to the Human Rights Council at the 27th Session of the Universal Periodic Review United Kingdom Introduction 1. Migrants Resource Centre, the European Network on Statelessness, the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion, and the University of Liverpool Law Clinic make this submission to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in relation to statelessness, access to nationality and the right to liberty and respect for human rights of stateless persons in the United Kingdom. This joint submission draws on the combined expertise of the submitting organisations in the UK and internationally. 2. Migrants Resource Centre (MRC) is a non-profit organisation founded in 1984 which hosts Asylum Aid and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens (PRCBC). Asylum Aid provides free legal representation to asylum seekers and stateless persons; undertakes related policy work, advocacy and education; and played a key role in researching statelessness1 and pressuring the UK Government to introduce a statelessness determination procedure. PRCBC provides legal advice and assistance and conducts research and education relating to the registration of children as British citizens. 3. The Liverpool Law Clinic is part of the School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool. It is staffed by practising lawyers who, since 2013, advise and represent people in the UK’s statelessness determination procedure. It has collaborated with UNHCR2 and met with Home Office officials to press for changes to practice and policy. The Clinic and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association are publishing a Best Practice Guide relating to statelessness applications in the UK.3 4.
    [Show full text]