[招兵買馬] 召集所有未放棄既連登仔，認真分工，幫港共官員同建制派取消外國護照 (2)
我要攬炒
716 回覆
886 Like
5 Dislike
第 1 頁第 2 頁第 3 頁第 4 頁第 5 頁第 6 頁第 7 頁第 8 頁第 9 頁第 10 頁第 11 頁第 12 頁第 13 頁第 14 頁第 15 頁第 16 頁第 17 頁第 18 頁第 19 頁第 20 頁第 21 頁第 22 頁第 23 頁第 24 頁第 25 頁第 26 頁第 27 頁第 28 頁第 29 頁
P
推
有狗混入左你地tg gp，大家睇路
推
小心啲...當公海group咁做
唔好講任何個人資料就得
呢度都係起底做research同寫文...全部行為都合法
班狗咬我食呀
唔好講任何個人資料就得
呢度都係起底做research同寫文...全部行為都合法
班狗咬我食呀
push
推
Some fruits for thoughts on the issue of deprivation of citizenship of British Citizens. Sorry that I don’t have a TG account.
THE TESTS
The previous position was that (i) there required a very high threshold on satisfying the “conduciveness to the public good” requirement under section 40 of the British Nationality Act; and (ii) there was in practice no course of action against those acquired British nationality by birth but only possible action against those by naturalization.
Recent developments are that it has become possible to strip one of his British nationality even if it may result in rendering him stateless (notwithstanding UN human rights requirements that countries should at their best effort prevent statelessness).
The public good conduciveness test has been set out in Aziz [2018] EWCA Civ 1884, whereby conduciveness to the public good means depriving in the public interest on grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours”.
For people only with British nationality, the additional tests are “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory” and “reasonable grounds for thinking that the person can acquire citizenship of another country”
It is almost certain that out of the five grounds in Aziz, only the following may be of some utility in the intended action:-
- serious crime
- war crimes
- unacceptable behaviours
There is a recent but established line of cases for serious crimes, but not for war crimes and unacceptable behavior.
THE TESTS
The previous position was that (i) there required a very high threshold on satisfying the “conduciveness to the public good” requirement under section 40 of the British Nationality Act; and (ii) there was in practice no course of action against those acquired British nationality by birth but only possible action against those by naturalization.
Recent developments are that it has become possible to strip one of his British nationality even if it may result in rendering him stateless (notwithstanding UN human rights requirements that countries should at their best effort prevent statelessness).
The public good conduciveness test has been set out in Aziz [2018] EWCA Civ 1884, whereby conduciveness to the public good means depriving in the public interest on grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours”.
For people only with British nationality, the additional tests are “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory” and “reasonable grounds for thinking that the person can acquire citizenship of another country”
It is almost certain that out of the five grounds in Aziz, only the following may be of some utility in the intended action:-
- serious crime
- war crimes
- unacceptable behaviours
There is a recent but established line of cases for serious crimes, but not for war crimes and unacceptable behavior.
SERIOUS CRIME AS A GROUND OF DEPRIVATION
For serious crimes, one example is that the subjects had been prosecuted and convicted of trafficking of children for sexual exploitation, rape, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children and sexual coercion and sentenced to 6-19 years of imprisonment (Ahmed and Others (deprivation of citizenship) (Pakistan) [2017] UKUT 118 (IAC)). Another example is that the subject posed as a qualified medical professional in the course of his asylum application, i.e. deception, and was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment (Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles) [2017] UKUT 196 (IAC).
Relying on the aforesaid, in the intended action, if this ground is to be relied on, it must be established that there involves a serious crime that:-
- involves dishonesty with imprisonment term from 17 months; or
- not involve dishonesty but with imprisonment term from 6 years.
In this regard, it may be conducive to have further investigation on any possible white collar crime by any of the subjects with dishonesty or carry substantial sentence terms. In any case it is not easy to establish this ground in lieu of any conviction, let alone prosecution.
For serious crimes, one example is that the subjects had been prosecuted and convicted of trafficking of children for sexual exploitation, rape, conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children and sexual coercion and sentenced to 6-19 years of imprisonment (Ahmed and Others (deprivation of citizenship) (Pakistan) [2017] UKUT 118 (IAC)). Another example is that the subject posed as a qualified medical professional in the course of his asylum application, i.e. deception, and was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment (Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles) [2017] UKUT 196 (IAC).
Relying on the aforesaid, in the intended action, if this ground is to be relied on, it must be established that there involves a serious crime that:-
- involves dishonesty with imprisonment term from 17 months; or
- not involve dishonesty but with imprisonment term from 6 years.
In this regard, it may be conducive to have further investigation on any possible white collar crime by any of the subjects with dishonesty or carry substantial sentence terms. In any case it is not easy to establish this ground in lieu of any conviction, let alone prosecution.
係上一個post留過言，各位手足可以搵埋肥彭幫拖。肥彭由2005年到依家都仲係a member of the House of Lords，所以下圖contact好大機會會搵到佢
UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR AS A GROUND OF DEPRIVATION
Unlike serious crime, there is no established line of cases or any established test on what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. Double allegiance alone does not satisfy the unacceptable behaviour require,emt as UK allows dual nationality.
Solely for reference, it may be of interest to refer to the previous iteration of the nationality act (BNA 1981) on the previous grounds for stripping British nationality:-
(a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty; or
(b) has, during any war in which Her Majesty was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business that was to his knowledge carried on in such a manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or
(c) has, within the period of five years from the relevant date, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months.
(b) and (c) above are self-explanatory enough. What deserves attention and interest is (a) - by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty.
On disloyalty, in Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347, an American citizen, holding a British passport after the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Germany in 1939, delivered from German territory broadcast talks in English hostile to Great Britain. A conviction for treason was upheld. Lord Jowitt LC referred to "the reciprocal duties of protection and allegiance" (page 370). Lord Jowitt stated, at page 371:
"The contention is a different one: it is that by the holding of a passport he asserts and maintains the relation in which he formally stood, claiming a continued protection of the Crown and thereby pledging the continuance of his fidelity. In these circumstances I am clearly of the opinion that so long as he holds the passport he is within the meaning of the statute a man who, if he is adherent to the King's enemies in the realm or elsewhere commits an act of treason … Moreover the special value to the enemy of the appellant's services as a broadcaster was that he could be represented as speaking as a British subject and his German workbook showed that it was in this character that he was employed, for which his passport was doubtless accepted as the voucher".
On disaffection, it is a wider concept than disloyalty. Disaffection is shown when an individual has by word or deed displayed active hostility to Her Majesty (as representing the United Kingdom) by showing himself unfriendly to the Government of the United Kingdom or hostile to its vital interests.
In Burns v Ransley [1949] 79 CLR 101, Rich J stated, "Disaffection connotes enmity and hostility, estranged allegiance, disloyalty, hostility to constituted authority or to a particular form of political government".
Whether there is any act or speech of disloyalty or disaffection is, again, a question of both fact and law and subject to further investigation.
Unlike serious crime, there is no established line of cases or any established test on what constitutes unacceptable behaviour. Double allegiance alone does not satisfy the unacceptable behaviour require,emt as UK allows dual nationality.
Solely for reference, it may be of interest to refer to the previous iteration of the nationality act (BNA 1981) on the previous grounds for stripping British nationality:-
(a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty; or
(b) has, during any war in which Her Majesty was engaged, unlawfully traded or communicated with an enemy or been engaged in or associated with any business that was to his knowledge carried on in such a manner as to assist an enemy in that war; or
(c) has, within the period of five years from the relevant date, been sentenced in any country to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months.
(b) and (c) above are self-explanatory enough. What deserves attention and interest is (a) - by act or speech to be disloyal or disaffected towards Her Majesty.
On disloyalty, in Joyce v DPP [1946] AC 347, an American citizen, holding a British passport after the outbreak of war between Great Britain and Germany in 1939, delivered from German territory broadcast talks in English hostile to Great Britain. A conviction for treason was upheld. Lord Jowitt LC referred to "the reciprocal duties of protection and allegiance" (page 370). Lord Jowitt stated, at page 371:
"The contention is a different one: it is that by the holding of a passport he asserts and maintains the relation in which he formally stood, claiming a continued protection of the Crown and thereby pledging the continuance of his fidelity. In these circumstances I am clearly of the opinion that so long as he holds the passport he is within the meaning of the statute a man who, if he is adherent to the King's enemies in the realm or elsewhere commits an act of treason … Moreover the special value to the enemy of the appellant's services as a broadcaster was that he could be represented as speaking as a British subject and his German workbook showed that it was in this character that he was employed, for which his passport was doubtless accepted as the voucher".
On disaffection, it is a wider concept than disloyalty. Disaffection is shown when an individual has by word or deed displayed active hostility to Her Majesty (as representing the United Kingdom) by showing himself unfriendly to the Government of the United Kingdom or hostile to its vital interests.
In Burns v Ransley [1949] 79 CLR 101, Rich J stated, "Disaffection connotes enmity and hostility, estranged allegiance, disloyalty, hostility to constituted authority or to a particular form of political government".
Whether there is any act or speech of disloyalty or disaffection is, again, a question of both fact and law and subject to further investigation.
Pushh
政府資料網
推
早幾個post係我關於UK law嘅research
少少都好希望幫到大家
少少都好希望幫到大家
Push