1. EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, K2 V.

THE UNITED
KINGDOM (APPLICATION NO. 42387/13), 7 FEBRUARY 2017
FACTS: The applicant, born in Sudan and naturalized as a British citizen in 2000,
faced deprivation of citizenship and exclusion from the UK due to alleged
involvement in terrorism-related activities. He fled the UK after being charged
with a public offense arising from protests against Israeli military action in Gaza in
2009. The Home Department and Security Service claimed he traveled to Somalia
with extremist associates and engaged in terrorism-related activities.
The Secretary of State notified the applicant of intention to deprive him of
citizenship and exclude him from the UK. Legal challenges in the High Court and
Court of Appeal were unsuccessful. The applicant argued for his right to return to
the UK for legal proceedings, citing fairness principles and EU precedent, but the
courts rejected this.
The case went to the Special Immigration Appeal Tribunal (SIAC), where the
applicant asserted evidence of no national security risk and inability to participate
meaningfully from Sudan. The SIAC rejected his complaints, finding him not frank
in his statements and establishing his presence in Somalia for terrorism-related
activities. It also concluded that out-of-country appeal was not intrinsically unfair,
and the burden was on the applicant to prove unfairness, which he failed to do.
SIAC identified viable means of communication between the applicant, his
lawyers, and the tribunal. In the end, the SIAC upheld the decisions to deprive the
applicant of citizenship and exclude him from the UK based on evidence presented
both openly and in closed national security cases.
Judgement & Principle applied: The ECtHR found that the revocation was
lawful and accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards. The applicant's
exclusion from the UK did not render him stateless, and he had voluntarily left the
country. The Court determined that the procedural safeguards were sufficient, and
the revocation was not arbitrary. Regarding the exclusion from the UK, the ECtHR
acknowledged interference with the applicant's private and family life but deemed
it proportionate given findings related to the applicant's involvement in terrorism-
related activities.
The Court rejected the applicant's discrimination claims, stating that the lack of in-
country appeal rights was due to his voluntary departure from the UK rather than
his status as a British citizen. The ECtHR dismissed the complaints, ruling that the
actions taken by the UK government did not violate the applicant's rights under the
European Convention on Human Rights.

2. DIME V. GRAND JUNCTION CANAL (1852) 3 HLC 579

FACTS: The appellant had been involved in protracted legal battles with the
respondent business. He challenged a decision made by the V.C. Dime’s to the
Lord Chancellor, who decided against him. The appellant eventually learned that
the Chancellor owned stock in the respondent company. In the appeal, their
Lordships of the House of Lords held that even though the Lord Chancellor
accidentally omitted to reveal his stake in the corporation, such interest (pecuniary
bias) was enough to render the Lord Chancellor’s ruling unconstitutional.
JUDGEMENT: It was eventually discovered that Lord Cottenham had stock in
the company. The jury found that no case should be determined by a judge who has
a financial stake in the outcome, notwithstanding the fact that there was no
evidence that the Lord Chancellor had in fact been influenced by his ownership of
the corporation. Due to his involvement in the case, it was decided that the Lord
Chancellor was ineligible to serve as a judge.

3.