Gary Glitter is I expect on his way back to Britain having served time for child sex offences in Vietnam. Some commenters at the Sun’s website have expressed the view that disgraced Glitter, as he’s now known, shouldn’t be allowed back here. But he has to be allowed back, of course. As a British citizen he has a right of abode here under section 2 of the Immigration Act 1971. While the Home Secretary does have power to take away someone’s citizenship if that’s conducive to the public good, it’s clear under section 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981 that she can’t use this power if doing so would render him stateless – as it will if he has no other citizenship.
The restriction in section 40(4) is there because the UK is a signatory to the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. Article 8 is the relevant provision.
Indeed, and I have been disturbed by Smith’s comments about arrangements for Glitter when (and if) he does. For example one report has her saying that Glitter will never be allowed to travel abroad. On what basis?
Nasty dog whistle politics. Does nobody in her department bother sorting her out with a succinct briefing on what can and what cannot be done or are we going to have more single issue legislation for the House of Lords to kick over?
The two greatest crimes against humanity are passports and fiat currency. Without either, what one usually considers to be crimes of humanity are almost impossible to perpetrate.
Fortunately, any application for a Sexual Offences Prevention Order has to be made to the courts and is not made by the Home Secretary. The old writ “ne exeat regno” disppeared a long time ago.
… or did it?
@ Peter Hargreaves
“The old writ “ne exeat regno” disppeared a long time ago.”
It would be nice to think that.
However……
NuLab has never felt that an absence of appropriate legislation should hamper government. If it proves absolutely necessary they will simply bring in yet more new, ill-considered and ill-drafted laws. After all, what is being in Government for, if it is not for the profligate exercise of draconian power?