Shamima Begum loses appeal against removal of British citizenship
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Shamima Begum, the Isil bride, has lost her Court of Appeal challenge against the removal of her British citizenship.
Three Court of Appeal judges, led by Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, ruled unanimously that it was lawful for the Government to strip her of her citizenship on national security grounds after she travelled to Syria as a 15-year-old in 2015 to join Isil.
Lady Carr told the court that they had rejected her appeal on all five grounds lodged by her lawyers. She said: “It could be argued that the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be argued that Ms Begum is the author of own misfortune but it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view.
“Our only task is to assess whether the deprivation [of citizenship] decision was unlawful. We have concluded that it was not and the appeal is dismissed.”
Ms Begum’s lawyers had claimed the Government had failed to take account of the fact that she was a victim of trafficking to Syria, that the removal of her citizenship was a breach of her human rights and that it would “de facto” have made her stateless.
The rejection of the appeal means that Ms Begum, now 24 years old, will remain in the al-Roj detention camp in north-eastern Syria for the foreseeable future as she is effectively stateless. Although British born, she had Bangladeshi citizenship until at least she was 21 but the country has made clear it will not accept her.
Begum has been backed by nearly £250,000 of legal aid as of August 2021 to bring the action as she has no financial means to support her case, according to a Freedom of Information request.
Begum’s background
Ms Begum, who was born and brought up in Tower Hamlets, east London, travelled to Syria via Turkey and aligned herself with Isil. She married an Islamic State fighter soon after arriving and had three children, none of whom survived.
As the Isil caliphate collapsed, Sajid Javid, the then home secretary, used his powers under the British Nationality Act 1981 to deprive her of her citizenship on the basis that it was “conducive to the public good” as she posed a threat to national security.
She sought to return to the UK in 2019 to challenge the removal of her citizenship but this was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2021. She was therefore forced to lodge her appeal against the revocation of her citizenship from northern Syria without giving evidence in person.
Her appeal was rejected by the special immigration appeal commission (SIAC) in February 2023, a decision that she appealed to the Court of Appeal, which gave its judgement on it on Friday.
Trafficking victim
Lady Carr said Ms Begum had appealed on five grounds, the first of which was that the home secretary had failed to consider whether she had been a potential victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation when she travelled to Syria via Turkey.
Her lawyers argued this amounted to a breach of article four of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that no-one should be held in slavery or servitude.
The SIAC found there had been at the very least “a credible suspicion” that she had been trafficked although it was accepted this was not an “absolute bar” to the deprivation of her citizenship.
However, the Court of Appeal judges rejected the claim that it breached the ECHR, saying there were two obstacles. One was that there was only an “arguable” rather than “actual” breach because of the lack of any conclusive evidence that she had been trafficked.
The second was the “passage of time” between the suspected trafficking in 2015 and the decision to strip her of her citizenship after she had spent four years living with Isil. The judges said there was “a lack of a causal link” between the events of 2015 and home secretary’s decision.
Home secretary’s verdict on trafficking claims
Ms Begum’s lawyers argued that the home secretary had failed to take into account the possibility that she had been a victim of trafficking in breach of common law.
However, Lady Carr said that the home secretary was aware of the circumstances of her departure to Syria and took account of the possibility she had been trafficked. “That assessment was kept under review,” she said.
How far Ms Begum’s decision to go to Syria was a voluntary decision was not binary, said Lady Carr. “Ms Begum may well have been influenced and manipulated by others, but still have made a calculated decision to travel to Syria and align with Isil,” she added.
“The assessment of the national security risk was in our judgement a question of evaluation and judgement and trusted by Parliament to the Secretary of State.”
Making Begum stateless
Ms Begum’s lawyers argued that the home secretary failed to consider that section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 barred him from making anyone stateless.
Although she retained Bangladeshi citizenship as of February 2019, they said it would “de facto” make her stateless as there was “no realistic possibility” that she could travel to and live in the country.
However, the Court of Appeal judges said the Home Secretary had taken this into account but was not required by law to consider the concept of “de facto” rather than “de jure” statelessness.
Right to be notified of citizenship revocation
Ms Begum’s lawyers said she should have been notified of the home secretary’s intention to strip her of her citizenship and should have been given the opportunity to make representations.
However, the judges said the British Nationality Act 1981 was designed to protect the public from a threat to national security, which could be frustrated by requirements to invite representations prior to a person’s citizenship being removed.
“Notifying a person abroad of an intention to remove their citizenship could enable that person to make a preemptive return to the United Kingdom and frustrate the purpose of the deprivation decision,” said Lady Carr.
She said SIAC was wrong, in its judgement, to say that Begum should have been allowed to make representations but, notwithstanding that, she noted: “It was inevitable that the Secretary of State would have made the same decision regardless of possible representations.”
Breach of equality law
Ms Begum’s lawyers argued that depriving her of her citizenship also breached equality laws in that such revocation powers had been “disproportionately applied to British Muslims”.
The Court of Appeal ruled, however, that there was a specific exemption under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 allowing ministers to take action to “safeguard national security”.
“As such, the national security or deprivation decision was exempt from the duties that arose under Section 149,” said Lady Carr.
Summing up the judgement, she said: “In conclusion, for these reasons, we unanimously dismissed the appeal.”
What next?
Ms Begum’s lawyers have said they will “keep fighting” after she lost the challenge over the removal of her British citizenship at the Court of Appeal.
Solicitor Daniel Furner said: “I think the only thing we can really say for certainty is that we are going to keep fighting.
“I want to say that I’m sorry to Shamima and to her family that after five years of fighting she still hasn’t received justice in a British court and to promise her and promise the government that we are not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home.”
Her lawyers must now seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and ultimately, if they fail there, could seek to take it to the ECHR.
12:19 PM GMT
That's all for today
That’s all for today. Thanks for following our live coverage of Shamima Begum’s challenge against the decision to revoke her British citizenship at the Court of Appeal.
Both the Home Office and Downing Street welcomed today’s ruling, with a No 10 spokesperson saying: “We’ll always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and we never take decisions around deprivation [of citizenship] lightly.”
Despite the unanimous ruling against her challenge, Begum’s lawyers vowed to continue fighting.
Daniel Furner, her solicitor, said “we will not stop fighting until she gets justice and is safely back home.”
He added: “I want to say that I’m sorry to Shamima and to her family that after five years of fighting she still hasn’t received justice in a British court and to promise her and promise the government that we are not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home.”
12:06 PM GMT
Downing Street welcomes Begum decision
Downing Street welcomed a Court of Appeal decision to dismiss Shamima Begum’s challenge over the removal of her British citizenship.
A No 10 spokesman said: “We welcome the decision. I wouldn’t comment on the details of individual cases.
“We’re pleased the court has found in favour of the Government. Beyond that I would just say that our priority remains on maintaining the safety and security of the UK.
“We’ll always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and we never take decisions around deprivation (of citizenship) lightly.”
11:40 AM GMT
Shamima Begum Court of Appeal ruling
The full Court of Appeal judgement has just been posted online.
You can read it below:
11:33 AM GMT
Begum being 'held unlawfully' in camp
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Gareth Peirce, a human rights lawyer representing Begum, said: “Shamima Begum is held unlawfully in indefinite arbitrary detention, which is banned by every international treaty.
“She and others, other women and children, are in what is not a refugee camp but a prison camp, and that is conceded by the United Kingdom, which has stated to the UN that it agrees that Geneva Convention articles apply.
“Unlawful as that is, there is no exit. There is no way that she can escape from unlawful imprisonment.”
Ms Peirce later said that conditions in the al-Roj camp where Ms Begum remains had worsened.
11:30 AM GMT
Reasons for Begum's appeal
Begum’s Court of Appeal challenge was brought because she believed the government had failed to consider if she had been a victim of trafficking for sexual exploitation.
The second reason she brought a challenge was due to the passage of time between the breach in 2015, when she left the UK for Syria, and the deprivation decision which was made in 2019.
The third ground was over concerns she would be made stateless as a result of the decision, which would breach the 1981 British National Security Act.
11:18 AM GMT
Home Office 'pleased' with Court of Appeal decision
Following the ruling, a Home Office spokesman said: “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found in favour of our position in this case.
“Our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and we will robustly defend any decision made in doing so.”
11:14 AM GMT
Human rights group says ministers 'bullying child'
Following the decision, the director of Reprieve a human rights group said the ruling “shames ministers” who are bullying a child.
Maya Foa said: “This whole episode shames ministers who would rather bully a child victim of trafficking than acknowledge the UK’s responsibilities.
“Stripping citizenship in bulk and abandoning British families in desert prisons is a terrible, unsustainable policy designed to score cheap political points. Rather than demonise Shamima Begum, ministers should reckon with the institutional failures that enabled Isis to traffic vulnerable British women and girls.
“What the courts have recognised today is that this was a political decision. It is now a political problem, and the government holds the key to solving it.
“If the government thinks that Shamima Begum has committed a crime, she should be prosecuted in a British court. Citizenship stripping is not the answer.”
11:05 AM GMT
Begum 'will not stop fighting'
Shamima Begum’s solicitor Daniel Furner has vowed to continue the fight for her British citizenship.
Mr Furner said: “We are not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home”.
He added: “I want to say that I’m sorry to Shamima and to her family that after five years of fighting she still hasn’t received justice in a British court and to promise her and promise the government that we are not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home.”
11:03 AM GMT
'Calculated decision' to travel to Syria
Baroness Carr said although Begum may have been “influenced” or “manipulated” by others, her decision to travel to Syria was “calculated”.
She said: “Ms Begum may well have been influenced and manipulated by others but still have made a calculated decision to travel to Syria and align with IS.”
11:00 AM GMT
'State failures' over seeing Begum as victim of trafficking dismissed
At the appeal hearing in October, Samantha Knights KC told the court the Government had failed to consider the legal duties owed to Ms Begum as a potential victim of trafficking or as a result of “state failures” in her case.
However, in the 42-page public judgment, Baroness Carr said: “We are not persuaded that there was any obligation on the Secretary of State to take into account the possibility that there might be a duty to investigate the circumstances of Ms Begum’s trafficking, alternatively, to consider whether any such investigation as might be required would be enhanced by her presence in this country.”
10:57 AM GMT
Arguments over judgement will be adjourned for seven days
Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Whipple, said any arguments over the consequences of the unanimous judgment, which could include a bid to appeal at the Supreme Court, will be adjourned for seven days.
10:55 AM GMT
Starmer doesn't think Begum should have been stripped of citizenship
🚨 REMINDER: Keir Starmer doesn't think Shamima Begum should have been stripped of her citizenship. pic.twitter.com/75F4lUGgQA
— Conservatives (@Conservatives) February 23, 2024
10:53 AM GMT
Begum 'author of own misfortune'
Giving the ruling, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: “It could be argued the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be argued that Ms Begum is the author of her own misfortune.
“But it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view.
“The only task of the court was to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful. Since it was not, Ms Begum’s appeal is dismissed.”
10:23 AM GMT
Begum loses appeal
Begum has lost her appeal and the hearing has ended.
10:19 AM GMT
Court hears reason for challenge
Dame Sue Carr has outlined why the then Home Secretary felt Begum ought to be stripped of her British citizenship.
She said that after Begum lost at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) last year it was the Court of Appeal’s duty to see if that judgement was lawful.
Dame Sue Carr continued to list the reasons for the challenge to appeal.
10:14 AM GMT
Summary of judgement heard
The Lady Chief Justice has taken her seat and is going through a summary of the Court of Appeal judgement.
Dame Sue Carr outlined Begum’s background and said she travelled from London to Syria via Turkey to join Islamic State in February 2015.
The court heard Begum married an Islamic State fighter soon after arriving in the country and went on to have three children, none of which survived.
Begum was born in the United Kingdom in August 1999, the court heard.
She lived in Tower Hamlets, east London, where she attended school.
Her parents are from Bangladesh and she had citizenship from the country until her 21st birthday.
10:05 AM GMT
Proceedings have started
The hearing on Shamima Begum’s citizenship has begun.
You can watch it live in the stream above.
10:03 AM GMT
Recap
Begum is one of three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green, east London, who travelled to Syria in 2015 to support to Islamic State.
She was 15 years old when she left with her friends Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase.
Sultana is believed to have died when a house was blown up. The fate of Abase is unknown.
Begum’s British citizenship was stripped on national security grounds in 2019 after the then 19 year old was found nine months pregnant in a Syrian refugee camp.
Her child later died of pneumonia.
09:33 AM GMT
Good morning and welcome
Good morning.
Shamima Begum will discover whether she has won a Court of Appeal challenge over the removal of her British citizenship.
Begum’s citizenship was revoked owing to national security concerns after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp in 2019 having travelled to the country aged 15 to join Islamic State.
Last year, the 24-year-old lost a challenge against the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Begum’s lawyers then attempted to overturn that decision at the Court of Appeal, with the Home Office opposing the challenge.
Three appeal judges are due to give their ruling on Ms Begum’s appeal today.
Follow this story for the latest updates.
