Shamima Begum, one of three
schoolgirls from east London who traveled to Syria to join the so-called
Islamic State, should be permitted to return to the UK to appeal the revocation
of her British citizenship, senior judges ruled.
schoolgirls from east London who traveled to Syria to join the so-called
Islamic State, should be permitted to return to the UK to appeal the revocation
of her British citizenship, senior judges ruled.
The 20-year-old fled the UK in
February 2015 and lived under IS rule for more than three years until she was
found in a refugee camp in February last year, nine months pregnant.
February 2015 and lived under IS rule for more than three years until she was
found in a refugee camp in February last year, nine months pregnant.
The then home secretary Sajid Javid
revoked her British citizenship on national security grounds later than month. In
an interview with Sky News she claimed she was “just a housewife”
during her four years in IS’ self-declared caliphate, where she married a young
Dutch fighter called Yago Riedijk three weeks after arriving.
revoked her British citizenship on national security grounds later than month. In
an interview with Sky News she claimed she was “just a housewife”
during her four years in IS’ self-declared caliphate, where she married a young
Dutch fighter called Yago Riedijk three weeks after arriving.
She said, she left Raqqa in January
2017 with her husband but her children, a one-year-old girl and a
three-month-old boy, had both since died. Her third child, called Jarrah, died
shortly after he was born last year.
2017 with her husband but her children, a one-year-old girl and a
three-month-old boy, had both since died. Her third child, called Jarrah, died
shortly after he was born last year.
In February, the Special Immigration
Appeals Commission (SIAC) – a specialist tribunal which hears challenges to
decisions to remove someone’s British citizenship on national security grounds
– ruled the decision was lawful as Ms Begum was “a citizen of Bangladesh
by descent” at the time of the decision.
Appeals Commission (SIAC) – a specialist tribunal which hears challenges to
decisions to remove someone’s British citizenship on national security grounds
– ruled the decision was lawful as Ms Begum was “a citizen of Bangladesh
by descent” at the time of the decision.
Ms Begum took legal action against the
Home Office, claiming the government’s decision was unlawful because it
rendered her stateless and exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and
degrading treatment.
Home Office, claiming the government’s decision was unlawful because it
rendered her stateless and exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and
degrading treatment.
The tribunal also found that she
“cannot play any meaningful part in her appeal and that, to that extent,
the appeal will not be fair and effective”, but ruled that “it does
not follow that her appeal succeeds”.
“cannot play any meaningful part in her appeal and that, to that extent,
the appeal will not be fair and effective”, but ruled that “it does
not follow that her appeal succeeds”.
Ms Begum’s challenge to the Home
Office’s decision to refuse to allow her to enter the UK to effectively pursue
her appeal was also rejected.
Office’s decision to refuse to allow her to enter the UK to effectively pursue
her appeal was also rejected.
The Court of Appeal has now ruled that
“the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be
permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal”.
“the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be
permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal”.
Lord Justice Flaux sitting with Lady
Justice King and Lord Justice Singh said: “Fairness and justice must, on
the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns, so that the
leave to enter appeals should be allowed.”
Justice King and Lord Justice Singh said: “Fairness and justice must, on
the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns, so that the
leave to enter appeals should be allowed.”
The judge found that “the
national security concerns about her could be addressed and managed if she
returns to the United Kingdom”.
national security concerns about her could be addressed and managed if she
returns to the United Kingdom”.
In its decision, the court said:
“If the Intelligence Service and the Public Prosecution Director find that
the facts and requirements of public interest are being met for prosecution for
terrorism offences, she may be arrested and charged upon her arrival in the
United Kingdom and put in custody awaiting trial.”
“If the Intelligence Service and the Public Prosecution Director find that
the facts and requirements of public interest are being met for prosecution for
terrorism offences, she may be arrested and charged upon her arrival in the
United Kingdom and put in custody awaiting trial.”
