Jun 18, 2026 · 39 min · 10 segments
What happens when citizenship can be taken away? Why are immigration detainees still struggling to access quality legal advice? And has legal aid been 'strangled by reform'? Host Sarah Henry sits…
Aisha RiazGuestSarah HenryHostBut we'll revisit your actual findings because I was so fascinated, particularly about immigration.
I never thought I would be very interested in that, but it actually the way you presented it when I saw you in Glasgow at a conference, it was fantastic.
But just before we get into that, I'd like to talk about some of your other work, which includes citizenship deprivation.
And of course, the case that we might associate primarily with that would be the case of Shamima Begum.
But I know you had written about this case in the Modern Law Review and in relation to the expanding powers of the Secretary of State to deprive individuals of British citizenship.
So I think you looked at that kind of balance between the litigation and also the separation of powers issue as well.
So for listeners who might not be all that familiar with the case, can you explain why the decision matters? And what does it tell us about this relationship between citizenship, getting that security balance right, and also executive power?
Yeah, so this was a case note I wrote for the, like you said, for the Modern Law Review a few years ago.
But, you know, I thought this, the Shamima Begum case is, you know, more than just about Shamima Begum, you know, is interesting.
It's a much bigger case about who gets to decide questions of citizenship and also questions of national security in the UK.
And what the Supreme Court essentially said is that when there's national security issues are involved, the courts should give a lot of weight to the Home Secretary's judgment.
And what this essentially means is that the executive branch of the state has a very strong role in deciding whether someone can be deprived of their citizenship.
But what interested me about this case is that it shows how citizenship is being increasingly tied to security concerns.
Traditionally, if you look at citizenship, how it's evolved, it was seen as a very secure legal status, you know, traditionally.
But this Begum case suggests that, you know, in some situations, citizenship can be removed if the government thinks it's necessary for national security.
And then also this case raises, you know, very important questions about accountability and fairness.
You know, So in the sense that if someone loses their citizenship and is outside the UK, how can they challenge the decision? You know, someone like Shamima Begum, you know.
So this case, you know, sits at the heart of, you know, when you look at citizenship, security, executive power and the balances, you know, what this case particularly shows is that it's been shifted increasingly towards the executive, you know, that balance of power.
But we'll revisit your actual findings because I was so fascinated, particularly about immigration.
I never thought I would be very interested in that, but it actually the way you presented it when I saw you in Glasgow at a conference, it was fantastic.
But just before we get into that, I'd like to talk about some of your other work, which includes citizenship deprivation.
And of course, the case that we might associate primarily with that would be the case of Shamima Begum.
But I know you had written about this case in the Modern Law Review and in relation to the expanding powers of the Secretary of State to deprive individuals of British citizenship.
So I think you looked at that kind of balance between the litigation and also the separation of powers issue as well.
So for listeners who might not be all that familiar with the case, can you explain why the decision matters? And what does it tell us about this relationship between citizenship, getting that security balance right, and also executive power?
Yeah, so this was a case note I wrote for the, like you said, for the Modern Law Review a few years ago.
But, you know, I thought this, the Shamima Begum case is, you know, more than just about Shamima Begum, you know, is interesting.
It's a much bigger case about who gets to decide questions of citizenship and also questions of national security in the UK.
And what the Supreme Court essentially said is that when there's national security issues are involved, the courts should give a lot of weight to the Home Secretary's judgment.
And what this essentially means is that the executive branch of the state has a very strong role in deciding whether someone can be deprived of their citizenship.
But what interested me about this case is that it shows how citizenship is being increasingly tied to security concerns.
Traditionally, if you look at citizenship, how it's evolved, it was seen as a very secure legal status, you know, traditionally.
But this Begum case suggests that, you know, in some situations, citizenship can be removed if the government thinks it's necessary for national security.
And then also this case raises, you know, very important questions about accountability and fairness.
You know, So in the sense that if someone loses their citizenship and is outside the UK, how can they challenge the decision? You know, someone like Shamima Begum, you know.
So this case, you know, sits at the heart of, you know, when you look at citizenship, security, executive power and the balances, you know, what this case particularly shows is that it's been shifted increasingly towards the executive, you know, that balance of power.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.