Some kind of advance warning of the government’s intention to remove citizenship at least gives time to prepare a defence and appeal. To no longer have this “heads up” will leave victims of such decisions winded and on the back foot – presumably this is why the “no notice” clause is being added to the legislation.
In the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2003, Lord Steyn emphasised the importance of notice as a key component of fair decision-making, stating that fairness is the guiding principle of our public law, and that fairness requires that a decision takes effect only upon communication.
The Home Office has said that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. A government spokesperson recently told the Guardian: “Deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. The nationality and borders bill will amend the law so citizenship can be deprived where it is not practicable to give notice, for example if there is no way of communicating with the person.”
The New Statesman has conducted research into the numbers of people and their nationalities who could potentially be affected by the new clause. Using 2011 census data it found that 5.6 million people in England and Wales could potentially be affected by the new rule. Just one in 20 are white, while half of British Asians and 39% of black Britons are potentially at risk.
Ned Hamson's Second Line View of the News 