New report on accountability for Daesh crimes highlights UK uses deprivation orders more than almost any other country
A new report from Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has made an important call for the Government to bring far greater transparency to its use of citizenship deprivation orders.
The Committee's report considers the UK's role in accountability for crimes committed by Daesh (or Islamic State or ISIS). You can download the full 45-page report here and you can read the section covering citizenship deprivation below.
In its chapter on citizenship deprivation, the report highlights that the UK strips individuals of citizenship more frequently than almost any other country in the world. The Committee expresses deep concern over the serious lack of transparency and oversight and the absence of regular public data relating to these decisions, some of which involve individuals detained in harsh and unstable conditions in Syrian camps.
"We are concerned that there is insufficient oversight of the use of the power to deprive individuals of their citizenship. We call on the Government to provide greater transparency as to the use of this power. In particular, we recommend that the Government allows for periodic independent review of the use of this power and for reports to Parliament," the Committee stated.
While reaffirming the need to prosecute those responsible for crimes under the Daesh regime, the JCHR makes clear that the Government's current approach, which includes the use of deprivation powers in lieu of prosecution, falls short of its human rights obligations.
The Committee also urges the Government to be more forthcoming about the number and status of British nationals detained in camps and prisons in North East Syria. Describing the camps as "open-air prisons," the report paints a grim picture of thousands of women and children held in conditions marked by starvation, lack of medical care, and constant threats of violence, without access to legal assistance.
The Committee stresses that where there is sufficient evidence of crimes committed by British detainees, prosecution—not abandonment—must be the Government's priority. It also issues a sharp warning about the plight of children in these camps, stating that the current piecemeal approach to repatriation may breach the UK's obligations under international law. It says the Government must do more to identify and repatriate British children as a matter of urgency.
The report's chapter on the deprivation of citizenship is reproduced below:
House of Lords
House of Commons
Joint Committee on Human Rights
Accountability for Daesh crimes
Second Report of Session 2024–25 | HC 612 / HL Paper 121
[…]
4 Deprivation of citizenship
62. The Home Secretary may deprive a British individual of their citizenship if it is "conducive to the public good", [67] but only if this would not render the person stateless. [68] To render a person stateless is unlawful under domestic and international law.
63. There is Government guidance available about the meaning of "conducive to the public good". This means that "it is in the public interest to deprive an individual of British citizenship because of their conduct and/or the threat they pose to the UK. Examples of when a person can be deprived of British citizenship on the ground that it is conducive to the public good include, but are not limited to: the interests of national security, for reasons relating to terrorism, hostile state activity, or any other reason." [69]
64. Under section 40(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA1981) the Home Secretary is required to provide written notice to individuals deprived of their citizenship. However, this requirement does not apply in certain circumstances, such as where the Secretary of State does not have sufficient information to be able to give notice or where it is considered necessary in the interests of national security. [70]
65. Before depriving individuals of their citizenship, the Home Secretary "must consider whether their human rights are engaged." [71] Where deprivation of citizenship might interfere with a qualified ECHR right, the Home Secretary must "carefully consider the impact deprivation would have on the person, and, if appropriate, their dependants and whether it would be proportionate." [72] If the individual to be deprived is abroad, the Home Secretary must "consider if deprivation would expose those individuals to a real risk of mistreatment which would constitute a breach of Articles 2 [right to life] or 3 [protection against torture, inhuman or degrading treatment] as if they were within the UK's jurisdiction and those articles were engaged." [73]
66. There is a right to appeal against a deprivation of citizenship order. [74] This right may be exercised abroad, as well as within the UK. Appeals are heard in the First-tier Tribunal, or alternatively at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in cases involving national security or public interest.
67. In appeals, SIAC must pay the Home Secretary's national security assessment "real respect, or great deference", and the Commission is not able to apply its own views about whether the deprivation is appropriate given the evidence. [75] Nevertheless, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case R (Begum) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission [2021] UKSC 7, SIAC can "assess whether the Secretary of State has acted in a way in which no reasonable Secretary of State could have acted, or has taken into account some irrelevant matter, or has disregarded something to which [s]he should have given weight, or has been guilty of some procedural impropriety." [76] SIAC can also "consider whether the Secretary of State has erred in law, including whether [s]he has made findings of fact which are unsupported by any evidence or are based upon a view of the evidence which could not reasonably be held." [77]
68. In the recent case of N3 & ZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6, [78] the Supreme Court decided that if an appeal is successful or if a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, that initial order will have had no effect, and the individual will be considered as having continued to be British.
69. From 2010 to 2023, at least 1,080 deprivation of citizenship orders were made, out of which 858 were because of fraud, and 222 were because it was conducive to the public good. Almost half of orders made on the grounds that they were conducive to the public good (104 orders) were made in 2017. [79] There have been several high-profile cases involving deprivation orders, including the case of Shamima Begum, a UK-born woman who travelled to Syria in February 2015, aged 15, where she married a Daesh fighter. She was deprived of her citizenship four years later. SIAC ruled in 2020 that she was a citizen of Bangladesh, so would not be left stateless. Separate appeals on her case, including before the Supreme Court, were unsuccessful. [80]
70. Siobhán Mullally, UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children has expressed concerns about the use of deprivation of citizenship orders without protections or procedural safeguards:
Deprivation of citizenship, without accompanying protections or procedural safeguards, is in itself a form of punishment… [and] also increases risks of trafficking and re-trafficking. [81]
71. Witnesses spoke to us about concerns in relation to the increased use of deprivation of citizenship orders and the lack of transparency in decisions. Katherine Cornett, from Reprieve, told the JCHR:
There is a serious lack of transparency when it comes to the use of this power. The UK now uses this power more than almost any other State… Because of the lack of information, there is no demographic data about who has been stripped of their citizenship and about their gender, ethnic background or religion. [82]
72. The Independent Reviewer for Terrorism Legislation expressed concerns about the lack of oversight of decisions:
It is a source of slight frustration for me that it [deprivation of citizenship] does not fall within the reviewer's remit, because it is a national security power. The number of times it was used in 2017 contrasts enormously with… the number of prosecutions relating to Daesh, or to the number of temporary exclusion orders, which I review… more transparency and public understanding can only be a good thing. [83]
He continued:
Courts are being told that they should not try to second-guess in any shape or form the assessment made by the Secretary of State… [I]n the absence of a review mechanism, it is hard to get under the skin of an assessment by the Home Office that a person presents a risk. [84]
73. He also spoke about potential consequences of deprivation of citizenship orders on children:
Deprivation impinges on the fate of children who were brought over by their families. These victims of poor parental choice are detained in dire conditions, surrounded by violence, and (in the case of boys) face removal to adult detention on reaching adolescence. Although no children have been deprived of citizenship, many of their mothers have. [85]
74. The Independent Chief of Borders and Immigration has published two reports connected to deprivation of citizenship orders, one in 2018 [86] and another in 2024. [87] However, both reports were narrow in scope: for the 2024 report, for example, the Chief Inspector conducted a "dip sample of 14 deprivation cases". Therefore, while we welcome these reports, we do not believe that they should be interpreted as offering independent oversight for every case, or even for most cases, of deprivation of citizenship.
75. Further, we heard that deprivation of citizenship orders could seriously affect the UK's ability to hold individuals accountable for international crimes, particularly given the citizenship requirement for the prosecution of some of these crimes. In this regard, Reprieve told us:
Citizenship stripping… is of course a barrier to accountability. It is a signal that the UK Government are not going to take responsibility and are putting this responsibility… on other States and detaining authorities that may be far less able to manage this. [88]
CONCLUSION
76. The UK uses deprivation of citizenship orders more than almost any country in the world. At the same time that it is important for the Government to be able to take steps such as citizenship stripping in the interests of public safety, there is a serious lack of transparency and oversight when it comes to the use of this power.
RECOMMENDATION
77. The Government must provide greater transparency as to the use of deprivation of citizenship powers, including by providing regularly updated data to the public. The Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, or the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation if his remit is expanded, should periodically review the use of deprivation of citizenship powers, including for national security reasons, and report to Parliament about his findings.
_________________________________
[67] British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), Section 40.
[68] Unless the person obtained their citizenship through naturalisation; and the Home Secretary considers that deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK; and the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is able to become a national of another country. British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), section 40(4)-(4A)
[69] UK Visas and Immigration, Deprivation of British Citizenship: caseworker guidance, Updated 22 October 2024.
[70] UK Visas and Immigration, Deprivation of British Citizenship: caseworker guidance, Updated 22 October 2024.
[71] UK Visas and Immigration, Deprivation of British Citizenship: caseworker guidance, Updated 22 October 2024.
[72] UK Visas and Immigration, Deprivation of British Citizenship: caseworker guidance, Updated 22 October 2024.
[73] UK Visas and Immigration, Deprivation of British Citizenship: caseworker guidance, Updated 22 October 2024.
[74] British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), section 40A and Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (SIACA 1997), section 2B.
[75] Secretary of State for the Home Department v P3 [2021] EWCA Civ 1642, 8 November 2021, para 126.
[76] Begum, R. (on the application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission & Anor [2021] UKSC 7 (26 February 2021), para 71.
[77] Begum, R. (on the application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission & Anor [2021] UKSC 7 (26 February 2021), para 71.
[78] N3 & ZA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6.
[79] House of Commons Library, Deprivation of British citizenship and withdrawal of passports, Research Briefing 6820, 18 December 2024.
[80] Begum, R. (on the application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission & Anor [2021] UKSC 7 (26 February 2021), Begum v SSHD [2024] EWCA Civ 152.
[81] Siobhán Mullally, UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children, Reprieve Report, Trafficked to ISIS, 2021.
[85] Jonathan Hall KC, Speech at King's College London, Returning from Islamic State: Risk and Response, 27 February 2023.
[86] Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, An inspection of the review and removal of immigration, refugee and citizenship "status", April - August 2017.
[87] Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, An inspection of the use of deprivation of citizenship by the Status Review Unit, April-June 2023.