Shamima Begum loses bid at Court of Appeal to have UK citizenship restored

Get the free Morning Headlines e-mail for information from our reporters internationally

Sign up to our free Morning Headlines e-mail

Shamima Begum has misplaced her bid to overturn the federal government’s resolution to strip her of British citizenship, the Court of Appeal has dominated.

Ms Begum travelled to Syria in 2015 aged 15 and her citizenship was revoked on nationwide safety grounds shortly after she was present in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.

Last yr, the now 24-year-old misplaced a problem in opposition to the choice at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).

Ms Begum‘s lawyers brought a bid to overturn that decision at the Court of Appeal, with the Home Office opposing the challenge.

In a ruling on Friday, three judges dismissed Ms Begum‘s bid.

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. Our only task is to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful.

“We have concluded it was not and the appeal is dismissed.”

At a listening to in October, Samantha Knights KC informed the courtroom the federal government had failed to take into account the authorized duties owed to Ms Begum as a possible sufferer of trafficking or in consequence of “state failures” in her case.

She mentioned in written submissions: “The appellant’s trafficking was a mandatory, relevant consideration in determining whether it was conducive to the public good and proportionate to deprive her of citizenship, but it was not considered by the Home Office.

“As a consequence, the deprivation decision was unlawful.”

However, Sir James Eadie KC, for the division, mentioned selections over whether or not somebody is a sufferer of trafficking or whether or not they need to be disadvantaged of their citizenship “have fundamentally different bases and roles”.

He continued: “The focus in the trafficking regime is on the protection of the individual and there’s really no countervailing public interest at that point.

“But here the regime is different, the regime in operation is the deprivation regime and the rationale is entirely different, it is the protection of the public at large.”

The barrister later mentioned the “key feature” of Ms Begum‘s case was national security.

He continued: “The fact that someone is radicalised, and may have been manipulated, is not inconsistent with the assessment that they pose a national security risk.”

In its ruling last year, the SIAC concluded there were “arguable breaches of duty” by state bodies – including the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets Council and Ms Begum‘s school – in not preventing her from travelling to Syria.

Ms Knights told the Court of Appeal at the start of the three-day hearing these “failures” could have also been unlawful and contributed to Ms Begum‘s trafficking.

However, Sir James said the SIAC was right to find there was “no direct connection between any potential failures, by other public authorities, in 2015” and ministers’ resolution to deprive Ms Begum of her citizenship.