UI2022005161

             The recusal application was not the only preliminary difficulty with the hearing. The Secretary of State was due to be represented by Ms Everett this morning but she was taken ill on the way to Field House and it was Ms Nolan who initially appeared before me, in order to explain the absence of Ms Everett and to ask for time whilst a replacement Senior Presenting Officer was located.

             I am extremely grateful to Ms Isherwood for what followed. She was able in the time that I allowed her to read the papers and to take instructions on my provisional view. When the matter was called on, she indicated that she accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State that the decision was indeed vitiated by public law error for that reason, and that the appeal fell to be allowed. She accepted that the decision would have to be retaken by the Secretary of State on the correct footing.

             As Mr Jones accepted, those submissions were properly made. Those two points were accepted on the basis of the law as it stood in July 2022 and there is, at present, no reason for either concession to be revisited. Those concessions should underpin the reconsideration which must take place as a result of this decision.

             In the circumstances, the appeal will be allowed on the basis agreed by the parties. The Secretary of State fell into public law error in the exercise of his discretion which, following Chimi and Kolicaj v SSHD [2023] UKUT 294 (IAC) , must result in this appeal being allowed so that a lawful decision can be taken on the question of whether or not the appellant should be deprived of the British citizenship which he obtained by deception.

The appellant's appeal is allowed for the reasons given above. It is for the Secretary of State to reach a lawful decision on whether or not the appellant should be deprived of his British citizenship.