In fact, who fancies a thread looking at why, yet again, @toryboypierce has proven himself entirely, utterly ignorant of the most basic facts in this story? Anyone? Go on. [THREAD]
The case @toryboypierce is talking about was reported in the Mail, here. Read it. Because then we’ll look at the actual facts. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5…
In short, the two appellants were, as the report says, granted citizenship in the basis of false information given to the authorities. Upon discovery of this, the Secretary of State decided that the grant of citizenship was a “nullity” - ie had never been legally valid. 
The appellants appealed. The case ultimately made its way up to the Supreme Court. The above screenshot is taken from the official Supreme Court judgment, which is here: supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uks…
Now look at that first paragraph:
Now look at that first paragraph:
Yep. You read correctly. Particularly the words “unusual circumstances” and “allowed by consent”.
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT OPPOSE THIS APPEAL!
In fact, it invited the court to simply administratively rubber stamp the appeal. It was the Court which insisted on full reasons:
THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT OPPOSE THIS APPEAL!
In fact, it invited the court to simply administratively rubber stamp the appeal. It was the Court which insisted on full reasons:
Why? Well, because, as you’ll see from the short 9-page judgment (trust me - this is, for judgments, short), the appeal was over a technicality. Namely: 
In short, the legislation that allows the govt to grant citizenship (or “naturalisation”) - the British Nationality Act 1981, also allows the govt to deprive someone of citizenship if the grant was obtained by fraud or false representation: 
The issue was whether, in this case, as a matter of law the grant was a “nullity” - ie had never been made - or whether it had been lawfully made, albeit on a false prospectus, and was therefore the type of thing that should lead to citizenship being deprived under s.40. 
Now the law in this area is confusing and muddled, as the Supreme Court itself noted in its judgment. But what both parties - appellants and government - now agree is that in this type of case, section 40 is technically the appropriate route. 
The judgment explains this in full. But the key takeaway is that the Supreme Court did NOT say that “asylum seekers who lie about their ID can stay”. It simply agreed with the government that the correct redress is a different technical legal route. Much less sexy, no?
Finally, have a look at the terms of the consent order agreed by the parties and approved by the Court: 
The government has agreed to pay the appellants’ costs for the appeal. Why? Well, it would appear because after fighting this argument through several layers of appeal, the government has belatedly conceded that it was wrong.
So taxpayer money *will* go to the legal teams of the appellants, but not because of legal aid largesse or silly liberal judges - but because the government picked a legal fight it now admits it was wrong.
There you go, @toryboypierce. Feel free to read this thread out in full on your show. ENDS.
