Shamima Begum has lost her appeal against the decision to revoke her British citizenship, despite her “credible” claim that she was a victim of human trafficking.
Mr. Judge Jay informed the semi-secret court hearing her case that her appeal had been completely rejected.
The verdict means the 23-year-old will be unable to return to the United Kingdom and will remain in a camp in northern Syria.
Her legal team stated that the case was “far from done” and that the verdict will be contested.
Ms. Begum traveled to join the self-styled Islamic State group in 2015 when she was 15 years old.
After marrying a member of the group’s fighting force, she went on to bear three deceased children.
In 2019, the then-home secretary Sajid Javid revoked her British citizenship, preventing her from returning home and detaining her in a camp as an IS supporter.
The Extraordinary Immigration Appeals Commission decided that the decision, adopted after ministers received national security advice concerning Ms. Begum’s threat to the United Kingdom, was lawful, despite the fact that Ms. Begum’s attorneys presented compelling evidence that she was a victim.
The History of Shamima Begum
During the appeal hearing in November 2015, Ms. Begum’s attorneys argued that the decision had been unlawful because the home secretary had failed to consider whether she had been a victim of child trafficking – essentially arguing that she had been groomed and duped into joining the fighters in February 2015, along with her schoolmates Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase.
Ms. Sultana was apparently slain in a 2016 bombing raid, whilst Amira Abase’s fate is unknown.
Due to the suspension of all British consular services in Syria, it is extremely difficult for the government to determine the whereabouts of British people.
It was the first time that judges were required to evaluate whether the state’s responsibility to combat child trafficking and abuse should have any bearing on national security judgments.
Mr. Justice Jay revealed that the case’s complexity gave the three-judge bench “much concern and trouble.”
In his report, he stated,
“The commission decided that there was a credible suspicion that Ms. Begum had been trafficked to Syria.”
“She was brought to Syria for sexual exploitation, for which, as a kid, she was unable to give legitimate consent.
“The commission also decided that there were possible breaches of duty on the part of several state agencies in allowing Ms. Begum to leave the country in the manner in which she did and ultimately cross the border from Turkey into Syria.”
Despite these concerns, the judge stated that even if Ms. Begum had been trafficked, the home secretary still had a legal obligation to make a national security decision to revoke her British nationality.
In his summary, the judge stated, “There is some substance to the claim that those advising the secretary of state view this as a black-and-white problem, but many would argue that there are shades of gray.”
Prior legal failures
Despite these concerns over the case’s handling, the commission determined that the home secretary acted within his authority, even though the outcome could have been different.
The judge stated, “If asked to evaluate all the circumstances surrounding Ms. Begum’s case, reasonable people with knowledge of all the relevant evidence will reach different conclusions, particularly regarding the extent to which her travel to Syria was voluntary and the weight to be given to that factor in the context of all others.”
“Similarly, reasonable individuals would disagree over the threat she presented to the national security of the United Kingdom in February 2019 and how that threat should be weighed against all mitigating factors.
“But, under our constitutional arrangement, the secretary of state evaluates these delicate topics, not the commission.”
This is not the first time Ms. Begum’s attorneys have lost a court challenge. In February 2020, the same commission rejected her team’s allegation that her citizenship revocation rendered her “de facto stateless.”
It concurred with the Home Office’s stance that, as she was technically eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship, it was not required by law to allow her to retain her UK rights.
Due to security concerns, the Supreme Court ruled in February 2021 that she could not return to the UK to fight her case there.
In contrast to the United Kingdom, other western nations such as France, Germany, and Australia have permitted a growing number of former IS sympathizers to return.
The BBC was informed by lawyer Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that all US citizens who traveled to Syria to join the self-styled Islamic State organization had been permitted to come home.
He stated that the rate of repatriations “appears to be accelerating,” with Germany permitting the return of 100 nationals, France permitting the return of more than 100 citizens, and Sweden permitting the return of double-digit numbers of citizens.
He told BBC News, “Countries are beginning to alter their stance from a strategic distance in an effort to control their return.”
There is a possibility that the United Kingdom will become an outlier.
“Perplexing discoveries”
In a statement, Ms. Begum’s attorneys Gareth Pierce and Daniel Furner urged the current home secretary, Suella Braverman, to reconsider the case “in light of the commission’s grave conclusions.”
They stated that the ruling reduces protections for British victims of child trafficking in circumstances involving national security and leaves their client “in unlawful, arbitrary, and indefinite imprisonment without trial in a Syrian camp.”
Her legal team stated,
“every available route to oppose this verdict would be sought quickly,” but did not provide any other information regarding a potential appeal.
The Home Office was “pleased” with the conclusion, according to a spokesperson, who added, “The government’s first priority is maintaining the safety and security of the United Kingdom, and we will vigorously defend any decision taken in that regard.”
Mr. Javid likewise applauded the verdict. He stated that ministers must have the authority to deny entry to anyone deemed a threat to the nation.
Human rights organizations and activists have criticized the verdict and the government’s attitude, arguing that Ms. Begum was the victim of child exploitation.
Amnesty International UK’s director of refugee and migrant rights, Steve Valdez-Symonds, stated, “The home secretary should not be in the business of expelling British people.”
David Davis, a Conservative member of parliament who has often challenged the government on civil liberties concerns, characterized the situation as a “shameful abandonment of responsibility” that must be corrected.
Also Read: Family Life and Hefty Net Worth Of Bumper Robinson
