N3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6 (26 February 2025)

An individual acquired British citizenship through identity fraud. The Supreme Court held that the Home Secretary's decision to treat the citizenship as a nullity has retrospective effect, meaning he was never a citizen, but that any subsequent removal decision engages Article 8 ECHR.

Facts

The appellant, ‘N3’, an Albanian national, entered the UK in 1999 as a minor. He falsely claimed to be a Kosovan refugee to claim asylum and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2000. In 2005, on the basis of his fraudulently obtained status, he was naturalised as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981 (‘BNA 1981’). He went on to establish a private and family life in the UK. In 2018, the Home Office discovered his true identity and Albanian nationality. In 2020, the Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘SSHD’) notified N3 that his grant of citizenship was a nullity because it had been obtained by personation (a fundamental form of identity fraud). This decision rendered him liable for removal from the UK.

Issues

The Supreme Court addressed two primary legal issues:

1. What is the legal effect of the SSHD treating a grant of citizenship as a nullity due to identity fraud? Specifically, is the effect retrospective, meaning the person was never a citizen?
2. If nullification is retrospective, does it nonetheless engage the person’s rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for private and family life?

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, with Lord Hodge giving the sole judgment.

The Effect of Nullification

The Court reaffirmed the principle established in R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 82 that where a grant of citizenship is obtained through fraud as to identity, it is a nullity. This is because the power to grant citizenship under section 6(1) of the BNA 1981 is conferred in respect of a specific person who meets certain conditions. If the application is made by a person pretending to be someone else, the condition precedent for the exercise of the power is not met.

Lord Hodge confirmed that the effect of this nullification is retrospective. The grant is treated as void ab initio (from the beginning). The Court stated:

Where the grant of citizenship is a nullity because the applicant assumed another person’s identity or created a false identity, the person has not become a British citizen. A person in that position was never a British citizen.

This was contrasted with the statutory power of ‘deprivation’ of citizenship under section 40 of the BNA 1981, which operates prospectively and removes a citizenship that was validly obtained.

Engagement of Article 8 ECHR

Despite the retrospective nature of nullification, the Court held that a decision to remove the person from the UK as a consequence of that nullification most certainly engages Article 8. The individual had, for a significant period, a perceived status as a British citizen, during which they established a private and family life. The SSHD’s decision to nullify citizenship and pursue removal is a profound interference with that life.

The Court clarified that the correct legal question for a tribunal is not whether the nullification decision itself is a proportionate interference with Article 8 rights, but whether the *consequential immigration decision* (i.e., the decision to remove the person) is a proportionate interference. The nullification decision is merely the recognition of a pre-existing legal state of affairs.

When assessing the proportionality of removal, the individual’s deception is a critical factor. Lord Hodge explained:

The tribunal must carry out a fair balance between the competing public and individual interests. The person’s deception will be a weighty factor in the assessment of the proportionality of the interference with his or her rights under article 8 which a removal from the United Kingdom would entail.

Implications

The judgment provides critical clarification on the law surrounding fraudulently obtained citizenship. It solidifies the distinction between nullification, which is a common law concept with retrospective effect for cases of identity fraud, and deprivation, a statutory power with prospective effect. It confirms that individuals who commit such fraud are treated in law as never having been British citizens. However, the decision is of major importance in human rights law because it robustly defends the principle that such individuals do not forfeit their Article 8 rights. It mandates a full, independent proportionality assessment by a court or tribunal before removal can take place, ensuring a judicial check on the executive’s power and acknowledging the reality of the life built in the UK, even if founded on deceit. The individual’s initial fraud will weigh heavily against them in that assessment, but it does not automatically lead to removal without a proper balancing exercise.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed.

Source: N3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] UKSC 6 (26 February 2025)