The decision to deprive former jihadi bride Shamima Begum of her British citizenship was unlawful, the Court of Appeal has heard.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the 24-year-old, now left stateless, told three senior judges on Tuesday that the Home Office 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.
Samantha Knights, KC, said 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.”
Ms. Begum travelled to Syria from her Bethnal Green home eight years ago—at the age of 15—before her British citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.
Earlier this year, she lost a challenge against the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Radicalised
Ms. Knights, representing the 24-year-old alongside Dan Squires, KC, said the UK has failed to have a “full and effective” investigation into how Ms. Begum was trafficked.
In its ruling earlier this year, 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 that these “failures” could have also been unlawful and contributed to Ms. Begum’s trafficking.
She continued, “The state failures in the present case were highly pertinent, bearing in mind what steps could readily have been taken by state bodies to protect the appellant and prevent her leaving the UK, and how swiftly the appellant’s family acted when they were alerted to her having gone missing and the sort of action which could have been taken by the family in conjunction with state bodies had they been made aware of the risk of the appellant leaving the UK.”
Lawyers for the Home Office, which is set to begin oral arguments on Wednesday, have told the court that SIAC’s conclusion was correct.
Sir James Eadie, KC, for the department, said in written submissions: “The fact that someone is radicalised and may have been manipulated, is not inconsistent with the assessment that they pose a national security risk. Ms. Begum contends that national security should not be a ‘trump’ card. But the public should not be exposed to risks to national security because events and circumstances have conspired to give rise to that risk.”
National Security Risk
Sir James also said the specialist commission “correctly recognised the difficulty at the heart of Ms. Begum’s case.”He continued: “An individual could have been manipulated, radicalised, and have her travel to ISIL-controlled territory facilitated by someone else. However, that would not touch the assessment that the individual also posed a real risk to national security, whether or not as a result of those same circumstances.”
The barrister later said SIAC was right to find there was “no direct connection between any potential failures, by other public authorities, in 2015” and Mr. Javid’s decision to deprive Ms. Begum of her citizenship.
The hearing before the Lady Chief Justice Lady Carr, Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Whipple is set to conclude on Thursday, with a decision expected at a later date.
Mr. Barrett, who headed up counterterrorism at the secret service, warned the high number of UK-linked detainees could embolden Islamic terrorists to refocus their murderous sights on Britain.
He described how the al-Hol and al-Roj refugee camps are not only putting British citizens—including children—at risk of violence, sexual abuse, and radicalisation but are extremely vulnerable to being seized and overtaken by ISIS.
His views were echoed by two other counterterrorism experts who told the Foreign Affairs Committee that Britain is now almost completely isolated in its approach to repatriating those from the war-torn country.
