Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2021] UKSC 7
판결 이유
The courts should not substitute their own view for that of the Secretary of State on matters of national security. Where citizenship deprivation engages national security considerations, judicial review is limited to examining the Secretary of State's decision on conventional public law grounds, and the court cannot make its own assessment of the national security case.
사실관계
Shamima Begum, a British citizen, left the UK aged 15 to join ISIS in Syria. In 2019, the Home Secretary deprived her of British citizenship on national security grounds under s.40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Begum appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which found she could not have a fair and effective appeal from Syria.
판결 요약
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Court of Appeal had erred in ordering that Begum be permitted to return to the UK to pursue her appeal. The Court held that national security is the responsibility of the executive, and the courts should not substitute their own assessment. SIAC could hear the appeal in whatever way was consistent with justice and national security, even if that meant a less than ideal process.
주요 인용문
"The right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public."
— Lord Reed
후속 처리
Leading authority on the relationship between national security decisions and judicial review. Significant for citizenship deprivation cases.