Secretary of State for the Home Department v Kolicaj [2025] UKSC 49 (18 December 2025)

Executive summary

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Secretary of State against the Court of Appeal in a case about the fairness of the British citizenship deprivation regime under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The judgment explains how the deprivation process works, including notice, an order, and appeal rights to the First-tier Tribunal or SIAC, and situates the case alongside earlier Supreme Court authorities on deprivation appeals. The source text provided is truncated before the Court’s final holding is set out in full.

Key points

• Parties: Secretary of State for the Home Department v Mr Gjelosh Kolicaj.
• Issue: how fairness/natural justice is satisfied in deprivation of British citizenship under section 40 of the 1981 Act.
• Context: Mr Kolicaj was convicted of conspiracy to remove proceeds of criminal conduct from England; the judgment describes this as serious organised money laundering involving about £8 million.
• The Secretary of State’s policy, as described in the text, focused deprivation power on the most serious and high-profile serious organised crime cases.
• Appeal-route issue: the judgment discusses differences between appeals to the First-tier Tribunal and SIAC, including the effect of national security/public interest certification under section 40A(2).
• Sanctions/export-control angle: none is identified in the source text; the case concerns nationality deprivation and immigration/public protection powers.

Why it matters

The case is relevant to national security and sovereign-risk audiences because it concerns a state power to strip citizenship where conduct is said to be conducive to the public good, including serious organised crime. It also addresses the procedural architecture for challenge, including when appeals are diverted away from the ordinary tribunal route into SIAC on certificate grounds.

Implications

For compliance and litigation strategy, the key point is that the deprivation regime is treated as a structured administrative process with distinct notice, order, and appeal stages, and the route of appeal depends on whether the Secretary of State certifies the case under section 40A(2). The source text indicates that the Secretary of State was using deprivation selectively for high-harm organised crime, so future challenges will likely focus on the threshold for that policy, the fairness of notice and reasons, and the proper appellate forum.