Harrison v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 432 (13 March 2003)

Harrison v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 432 (13 March 2003)

The right to British citizenship is not a civil right within the meaning of Article 6(1) ECHR, and the absence of an independent tribunal does not breach Article 6 because the courts are available to determine such disputes. The Secretary of State's letter did not constitute a determination of the appellant's rights.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 432
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Peter Harrison; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Seek Judicial Review / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
British Citizenship, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Review, Right to a Fair Hearing
Public Law Human Rights Law Nationality Law British Citizenship Article 6 ECHR Judicial Review Right to a Fair Hearing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Harrison

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Refusal of Permission to Seek Judicial Review / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the right to be recognised as a British citizen is a civil right within the meaning of Article 6(1) ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an independent tribunal for citizenship disputes breaches Article 6(1) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The right to British citizenship is not a civil right within the meaning of Article 6(1) ECHR, and the absence of an independent tribunal does not breach Article 6 because the courts are available to determine such disputes. The Secretary of State's letter did not constitute a determination of the appellant's rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs