Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Edl The Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Abu Hamza - the judgement report; The official SIAC ruling
Topic Started: Nov 10 2010, 11:00 AM (49 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bit of a lengthy read, but now you can see the full report of Abu Hamza´s successful appeal against him losing his British Passport.

http://www.siac.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/Hamzaopenpreliminaryissuejudgment05112010.pdf

And here´s the kick in the teeth - from SIAC´s website.


"The BNA 1981 (as amended) provides that a person may be deprived of their citizenship status if the Secretary of State certifies that to do so would be conducive to the public good. A person may not be deprived of their citizenship status if this would make him stateless. Where the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to deprive was based wholly or partly in reliance on information which he believes should not be made public, the appeal is heard by SIAC."

What this means in effect is that any "terrorist" or "terrorist suspect" is made stateless by his or her country of origin (and providing of course they now have British citizenship) they will not lose their passport or citizenship! How stupid are we?

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

It's irrelevant then what is conducive to the public good (which should be the over-riding factor) if it rendered him stateless. I wonder why it says 'he' when Theresa May is Home Sec? Is this a decision taken already by the last Labour Home Sec, which was Johnson I think? I still think they have gone for the less hassle option, the evidence against Hamza held by the French and US is overwhelming, he will be in the US within 3 years
Quote Post Goto Top
 
English Angel
Member Avatar
Kafir
Having read through the whole Order, here is an abridged easy to read version and my own personal opinions are in brackets.


Background

1. He came to the UK in 1979 on an Egyptian passport, being allowed to stay for 1 month. In 1984 he applied for British Citizenship based on the fact he had been resident here for five years, his legal argument being that it was irrelevant how he had managed to stay in the country. (I would argue that his immigration history WAS relevant as clearly he was only granted leave to enter for ONE month, so why was he resident here for five years and able to claim citizenship)

2. 2002 The Secretary of State attempted to repeal his citizenship based on issues of National Security. He appealed based on the Secretary of State not being in a position to make such an Order and only the SIAC (Special Immigration Appeals Commission) could make the determination based on EU rules. That remained pending. (Events overtook it in 2004).

3. 2004 he was arrested under a US Extradition Warrant. In the same year he was also prosecuted and convicted of charges under UK law and held in Belmarsh. During his time here he has fought using the Human Rights laws, against the US Extradition Warrant (at taxpayers expense) but all appeals against this extradition had so far failed. Based on these events Hamza appealed against his stay (the right to appeal) and he was again allowed to appeal in February this year, against being stripped of British Citizenship.

4. The argument is he didn't give up being Egyptian, Egypt stripped him of his nationality.

Law

4. S40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 basically says: The Secretary of State can't take away his British Citizenship if it would make him stateless

5 & 6 are the de jure and de facto arguments (in law and in fact), would stripping him of his British Nationality make him stateless.

Facts

1979 - 1988

7. He had trouble getting an Egyptian passport because he was of an age to do military service, but hadnt. (no surprises there). His original passport was only granted for 6 months and once he was in the UK the Egyptian Embassy refused to grant him a full passport because he had not done his military service. (yellow bellied shirker) hence applying for British Citizenship as he needed a passport to travel. Through 'contacts' in the Embassy, in 1988 he did secure an Egyptian passport based on claiming dual nationality as having this passport made it easier to travel to Egypt (and no doubt other Islamic countries).

Further legal argument results at this stage, in the opinion that Hamza is still an Egyptian national.

1988 - 2003

10. during this time he gained notoriety both here and in Egypt for his political views and actions and lost both hands and an eye in an explosion in Afghanistan. The Secretary of State tried to strip him of his British Nationality in 2003 after changes in the law. Prior to this there is no evidence the Egyptians tried to strip him of his Egyptian nationality and had the judgment been made at that time he would not have been stateless.

2004

11. An announcement in an Arab newspaper, Al-haram, stated that Hamza had been stripped of his Egyptian nationality after he was granted British nationality. It also added that stripping him of his Egyptian nationality had made it difficult for the British authorities to easily remove him from Britain.The Egyptian State Information Service also published the same information on their website.

Legal argument then takes place regarding the confusion between the 1988 stance whereby he wasn't stripped of his nationality because he hadn't sought the express permission of the Egyptian authorities to do so versus the 2004 statement on their website saying he had been stripped of it. (In either/any event, it was clear the Egyptians didn't want him back)

The British Embassy wrote a note verbale (diplomatic enquiry) to the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for clarification of his citizenship status, who on 15 December 2004 replied:

“I have the honour to inform you that the relevant Egyptian authorities have advised that no conclusion was reached which could be provided to you on this matter”.

More legal argument attempts to determine the meaning of the reply. The result was thus, that ultimately they are neither confirming or denying, but clearly do not wish to impair any Judgement of the British Courts.

A specialist lawyer who had previously worked for the Egyptian government (General Afify), stated that whilst the original determination that Hamza had not relinquished his Egyptian Citizenship rendered him still an Egyptian national, was subsequently was overturned by the decree in Al-huram and the Egyptian State Information website, and therefore he had been stripped of his citizenship by the Egyptian Authorities, but the decree was not published.

To reinstate his Egyptian citizenship he stated, would involve much legal wrangling ultimately culminating in Hamza having to apply for the imprisonment of the Egyptian Interior Minister, something that no Egyptian Court would ever enforce and therefore: The meaning behind General Afify’s description of the legal process which would have to be undertaken to challenge an unpublished decree is plain: it would be costly, endless and futile.

When asked to clarify his evidence, General Afify stuck firmly to his opinion. He accepted that the decree by which nationality had been withdrawn should have been published in the Official Gazette. At one stage, he said that non-publication meant that the decision was “illegal” on the sensible ground that the person affected could not know about it if it was not published. He was asked what the effect of non-publication was. His firm reply was that the decision took effect from the date upon which the decree was issued, even though it was not published then or later in the Official Gazette. No one can say when that decree was published. It may be that the actions and enquiries of the British Government in and after 2003 prompted the issuing of a decree before 30 May 2004.(The note verbale that kicked all this off was probably the signal for the Egyptians to strip him of his citizenship to make sure they didn't get him back)


While there is no clear logical explaination for the Egyptians reply to the note, it was on this evidence that Hamza subsequently succeeded in establishing his loss of Egyptian citizenship, and whilst he is as we speak fighting his extradition to the US using the Human Rights laws, there is no cast iron guarantee he will get extradited if the Americans dont give certain guarantees about his safety.

Its our own laws that need looking at. We are going to get landed with a whole load of wrongun's if we're not careful as they use our own laws against us, and know better than anyone how to
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · EDL Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Feliz Navidad (Gold) created by Sarah & Delirium of the ZNR