In Aziz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1884 (08 August 2018) the Court of Appeal gave guidance in respect of Article 8 in deprivation of citizenship appeals given the difficulties caused by the current UT reported decisions. Aziz concerned the deprivation proceedings which followed the criminal convictions in the Rochdale grooming cases. Practitioners should refer to §§21-32 of Sales LJ's judgment.
§26 neatly summarises the position:
In my view, the guidance in Delialissi and in AB (British citizenship: deprivation Delialissi considered) Nigeria on this point is liable to mislead tribunals in relation to how they should approach consideration of Article 8 and other Convention rights and section 55 in appeals concerned with deprivation of citizenship. Although in a sense it is of course difficult to quibble with the formula in Delialissi that regard should be had to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of deprivation of citizenship, an examination of such consequences is only required insofar as it is necessary to make an assessment in relation to them in order to rule upon whether the making of the deprivation order itself will be lawful and compatible with Convention rights, in particular Article 8, and section 55. That will depend in turn upon the reasons put forward by the Secretary of State to justify the making of the deprivation order (as distinct from any deportation or removal order which might be made at a later time).