he Supreme Court has made a significant ruling regarding withdrawn citizenship deprivation orders. Here's a breakdown of the key points:

Continuous British Citizenship:

The Supreme Court ruled that when a citizenship deprivation order is withdrawn, it is to be treated as having had no effect on an individual's citizenship status during the period between the order's issuance and its withdrawal.

This effectively affirms that individuals in these situations have maintained continuous British citizenship.

Impact on Statelessness:

The ruling addressed cases where individuals were at risk of being rendered stateless

due to citizenship deprivation orders.

The court's decision clarifies that if a deprivation order is overturned on the grounds of statelessness, or withdrawn by the Home Secretary, the person is considered to have been a British citizen throughout.

Effects on Children's Citizenship:

A significant aspect of the case involved the citizenship of children born during the period when their parents' citizenship was in question.

The Supreme Court's ruling ensures that these children are also recognized as British citizens from birth.

Key Cases:

The ruling was based on cases involving individuals such as E3 and N3, who had their British citizenship deprived on national security grounds.

The case also involved ZA, the daughter of E3, whose citizenship was in question.

In essence, the Supreme Court's decision provides clarity and protection for individuals whose British citizenship was wrongly deprived, ensuring their continuous citizenship and safeguarding the citizenship of their children.

In a judgment issued yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that when a citizenship deprivation order is withdrawn, it should be treated as if it never took effect when assessing an individual’s citizenship status during the period between its issuance and withdrawal.

The case involved two individuals, identified as N3 and E3, who were born in Bangladesh and had their British citizenship revoked on national security grounds in 2017.

In 2021, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) determined that British-Bangladeshi dual nationals in similar situations lost their Bangladeshi citizenship upon turning 21. As a result, revoking their British nationality would render them stateless. Following this decision, the Home Secretary rescinded the deprivation orders against E3 and N3. However, the government maintained that both had lost their British citizenship during the interim period.

Another key aspect of the case concerned E3’s daughter, ZA, who was born while her father was considered stateless. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed that E3 and N3 had remained British citizens throughout, meaning that ZA had British citizenship from birth.

E3 responded to the ruling with a mix of relief and frustration. Quoted by Duncan Lewis Solicitors, he stated: "While I welcome the court's decision, it is bittersweet. I have lost out on crucial years of my daughter’s childhood and struggle to understand why it took intervention from the highest court in the country to reach a conclusion that was simply common sense. This entire ordeal has made my family and me feel like second-class citizens. I am deeply grateful to my legal team, who have fought for my rights since 2017."

Duncan Lewis, who represented E3, has provided further details on the case, as has Doughty Street Chambers. Doughty Street’s Alasdair Mackenzie, led by Hugh Southey KC of Matrix, was instructed by Fahad Ansari of Duncan Lewis.