Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Ramby de Mello (instructed by Capital Solicitors LLP) for the Claimant David Blundell (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant Hearing date: 26 June 2019 ____________________
17.1 The core complaint remains the deprivation decision and the Secretary of State's alleged failure to implement a "proper policy" in relation to the deprivation of citizenship of British nationals who are overseas and at real risk of treatment in breach of their human rights.
17.2 Complaint is also made that the Home Office served the notice in Bangladesh. It is argued that the Home Secretary had no power to issue the decision while Ashraf was not in the United Kingdom. The father argues that maintaining the deprivation decision while Ashraf is detained overseas by a non-state armed group is unreasonable, arbitrary and disproportionate. He also complains that the Secretary of State failed to take all reasonable steps to bring the deprivation decision to Ashraf's attention in order that he could appeal to SIAC.
17.3 Further, the father complains about the Home Secretary's failure to facilitate or take proper steps to return Ashraf to the United Kingdom.
19.1 Standing: It disputes Mr Islam's standing to challenge the deprivation decision. It argues that any claim should be made by Ashraf and not his father.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.