header-logo header-logo

14 October 2013
Issue: 7580 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court clarifies statelessness in Al-Jedda

Home secretary acted unlawfully in stripping refugee of British citizenship

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that Home Secretary Theresa May acted unlawfully when she stripped a refugee of his citizenship, because she rendered him stateless.

Hilal Al-Jedda, an Iraqi who claimed asylum in the UK in 1992, was granted British citizenship in 2000, automatically losing his Iraqi citizenship.

In 2004, he travelled to Iraq with his family, where he was arrested and subsequently detained for three years by the British authorities, who believed he was involved in terrorism. Al-Jedda denied the allegations, and no criminal charges were ever brought.

The home secretary then revoked his British citizenship, and he travelled to Turkey. 

Under s 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981, a secretary of state may not make a deprivation of citizenship order where satisfied that an order would render a person stateless.

The home secretary argued that her order did not make Al-Jedda stateless because he could have applied for Iraqi citizenship.

Dismissing her appeal, in Home Secretary v Al-Jedda [2013] UKSC 62, Lord Wilson said a s 40(4) inquiry was a “straightforward exercise… it is whether the person holds another nationality at the date of the order”. 

Lord Wilson noted that Home Office guidance on statelessness, published this year, incorporated the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ guidance, which provides that “an individual’s nationality is to be assessed as at the time of determination of eligibility…it is neither a historic nor a predictive exercise”. 

Phil Shiner, solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers, who acted for Al-Quedda, says the ruling “clarifies the law relating to statelessness”.

In separate proceedings, the European Court of Human Rights held in 2011 that Al-Jedda’s internment in Iraq had breached his Art 5(1) right to liberty.

 

Issue: 7580 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll