Introduction

The case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Daci ([2025] EWCA Civ 18) addresses the critical issue of whether the Secretary of State appropriately exercised the discretionary powers granted under section 40(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981) in depriving Mr. Daci of his British citizenship. This commentary delves into the intricacies of the case, exploring the background, key legal questions, parties involved, and the broader implications of the Court of Appeal's judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Daci, an Albanian national, acquired British citizenship in 2004 under a false identity, involving deceit regarding his name, date of birth, and nationality. In 2021, the Home Department sought to revoke his citizenship on grounds of fraud, prompting Mr. Daci to appeal the decision. The First-tier Tribunal initially ruled in his favor, a decision later overturned by the Upper Tribunal (UT), which found that the Secretary of State had failed to adequately exercise her discretion under section 40(3) of the BNA 1981 by not considering relevant factors.

The Secretary of State appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of State had indeed exercised her discretion appropriately and provided sufficient reasoning for the deprivation of citizenship. Additionally, the Court determined that Mr. Daci's claims under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should be remitted to the UT for further consideration.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key precedents that shaped the Court’s reasoning:

• R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] AC 765 (Begum (No.1)): This Supreme Court case is pivotal in understanding the principles governing the exercise of discretion in administrative decisions, emphasizing the necessity for decision-makers to provide clear reasoning.
• Ciceri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKUT 238 (IAC): This case laid out the foundational principles for deprivation of citizenship appeals, particularly focusing on the necessity of linking deception directly to the grant of citizenship.
• Chadha v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 16 (Chaudhry): Involved a coordinated approach to appeals under section 40A, establishing a clear test for the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) when reviewing decisions made under section 40(3).
• Aziz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1884: Highlighted the limited impact of citizenship deprivation on human rights compared to deportation, particularly under Article 8 of the ECHR.

These precedents collectively influence the Court’s approach to assessing the legality and propriety of the Secretary of State’s decision, ensuring consistency and adherence to established legal principles.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the UT’s reasoning, affirming that the Secretary of State had indeed exercised her discretion under section 40(3) of the BNA 1981. Key points in the legal reasoning include:

• Consideration of Relevant Factors: The Court found that the Secretary of State had addressed all relevant factors, including Mr. Daci’s age when the fraud was committed, his continued deceit as an adult, and the prompt action taken upon discovering the fraud in 2020.
• Provision of Sufficient Reasons: The Court concurred that the written decision provided adequate reasons for deprivation, referencing relevant policies and addressing Mr. Daci’s representations.
• Alignment with Policy: The decision was consistent with the relevant policy, particularly regarding the treatment of individuals who were minors at the time of committing fraud versus those who continued deceit into adulthood.
• Human Rights Considerations: While acknowledging the marginal impact of deprivation on human rights, the Court deemed it necessary to remit the Article 8 ECHR claim for further examination.

This structured and comprehensive approach underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that executive decisions, especially those affecting citizenship status, are made transparently and justifiably.

Impact

The Court of Appeal's decision in this case has significant implications for future citizenship deprivation cases:

• Clarification of Discretionary Powers: The judgment reinforces the breadth of the Secretary of State’s discretionary powers under section 40(3) of the BNA 1981, affirming that adequate consideration of relevant factors and thorough reasoning are sufficient to uphold deprivation decisions.
• Guidance on Policy Application: By aligning the decision with existing policies, the case provides a clear framework for applying policy guidelines in similar contexts, ensuring consistency in administrative actions.
• Human Rights Considerations: The decision highlights the necessity of addressing human rights claims, such as Article 8 ECHR, reinforcing the need for courts to balance administrative discretion with individual rights.
• Procedural Precedent: The coordinated approach taken in related appeals (Chaudhry and Kolicaj) sets a procedural precedent for handling complex, multi-faceted citizenship deprivation cases.

Overall, the judgment serves as a benchmark for evaluating the lawfulness and proportionality of citizenship deprivation, ensuring that such significant decisions are grounded in robust legal reasoning and policy adherence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's judgment in Secretary of State v Daci underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law while respecting the discretionary powers granted to the executive. By affirming that the Secretary of State appropriately exercised discretion under section 40(3) of the BNA 1981 and providing sufficient reasoning, the Court reinforces the standards required for administrative decisions affecting citizenship. Additionally, the decision to remit the Article 8 ECHR claim emphasizes the importance of balancing individual rights with public interest considerations.

This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving citizenship deprivation, ensuring that such actions are not only legally justified but also procedurally fair. It highlights the necessity for clear articulation of reasons in administrative decisions and the thorough consideration of all relevant factors, thereby fostering transparency and accountability within the immigration and nationality framework.