Shamima Begum has lost an appeal against the revocation of her British citizenship, after MI5 argued that she continued to pose a threat to national security.
Ms Begum, now 23, fled the UK at the age of 15 to join the Islamic State (IS) terror group in Syria and had her British citizenship removed by the home secretary when she resurfaced in a refugee camp in 2019.
She mounted a legal challenge against the decision, arguing that MI5 was wrong to conclude she represents a threat to the British public and claiming she was trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation.
On Wednesday, Mr Justice Jay, sitting at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), rejected Ms Begum’s legal challenge.
The judge found that there was a “credible suspicion” Ms Begum was a victim of trafficking to Syria.
“The motive of bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation for which, as a child, she could not give valid consent,” he said during a brief hearing on Wednesday.
'Shades of grey'
However, the commission concluded the home secretary was not formally required to consider whether Ms Begum was a victim of trafficking when he removed her citizenship.
The judge said there was "considerable force" to Ms Begum's argument that the home secretary's conclusion she travelled voluntarily was "as stark as it is unsympathetic".
He continued: "Further, there is some merit in the argument that those advising the Secretary of State see this as a black-and-white issue, when many would say there are shades of grey."
Ultimately, however, the commission accepted that the home secretary's conclusion was "an integral part of the overall national security assessment carried out by the Security Service" and therefore not a matter for the court.
The judge said: "If asked to evaluate all the circumstances of Ms Begum’s case, reasonable people with knowledge of all the relevant evidence will differ, in particular in relation to the issue of 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.
"Likewise, reasonable people will differ as to the threat she posed in February 2019 to the national security of the United Kingdom, and as to how that threat should be balanced against all countervailing considerations.
"However, under our constitutional settlement, these sensitive issues are for the Secretary of State to evaluate and not for the commission."
The Home Secretary was said to maintain that "national security is a weighty factor and that it would take a very strong countervailing case to outweigh it".
The ruling continued: "Reasonable people will profoundly disagree with the Secretary of State, but that raises wider societal and political which it is not the role of this commission to address."
Authorities had feared that if Ms Begum were to win the case, it could set a precedent which allows an influx of potentially dangerous jihadists into Britain.
It has been estimated that around 60 British citizens are being held in indefinite detention in Syria after fleeing areas once controlled by Islamic State.
There was concern that up to 150 terror suspects similarly stripped of their British citizenship could also have tried to challenge their own rulings if Ms Begum’s case succeeded.
'State may have failed'
In the full written judgment, he added: "The state may have failed in its duties to Ms Begum before she travelled to Syria, but she is now well beyond the scope of its protections."
The evidence of both an MI5 witness and a Home Office counter-terror official "betrayed an all-or-nothing approach", the ruling said.
The MI5 officer who gave evidence, referred to in court as Witness E, said that IS had committed a string of high-profile atrocities by the time Ms Begum left Bethnal Green, east London.
"In my mind and that of colleagues, it is not conceivable that even a 15-year-old - that 15-year-old having been predicted As and A*s, an intelligent, articulate and presumably critically thinking individual - would not know what (IS) was about,” he said.
"In some respects, I do believe she knew what she was doing and had agency in doing so."
In the ruling, the judge said it was "not unfair or inapposite" for Samantha Knights KC, representing Ms Begum, to characterise the claim by the MI5 witness as "stark".
MI5 'downplayed grooming'
The ruling continued: "The commission is also concerned by the (Security Service's) apparent downplaying of the significance of radicalisation and grooming, in stating that what happened to Ms Begum is not unusual
"The commission does not doubt that this has been commonplace but that has no real relevance.
"History, and sadly the present, is replete with examples of dictatorships attempting to manipulate their subject populations with propaganda and the like. It is commonplace that they succeed."
Ms Begum remains at the al-Roj camp in northern Syria, which is run by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). She has lost three children since travelling to the warzone.
Following the hearing, a Home Office spokesman said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the Government’s position in this case.
“The Government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and we will robustly defend any decision made in doing so.”
'Fight is nowhere near over'
Speaking outside court, Daniel Furner and Gareth Peirce, Ms Begum's lawyers, described the ruling as "extraordinary" and vowed that the legal fight was "nowhere near over".
Ms Peirce said it was clear the commission was "deeply troubled" by the limitations that had been placed on its ability to act on this case.
"The outcome that we face is that no British child who has been trafficked outside the UK will be protected by the British state if the Home Secretary invokes national security," she continued.
Mr Furner added: "What really jumps out of the judgement is what the commission did not say.
"What they did not do is endorse what Sajid Javid said in September 2021: he said, 'you haven't seen what I saw, if you know what I knew and you were sensible, responsible people, you would have made exactly the same decision, of that I have no doubt'.
"In fact, this commission, which saw exactly the same material that Sajid Javid saw, did not say anything like that at all.
"(The judge) described the case as finely balanced and said that reasonable people might strongly and profoundly disagree with the way in which Ms Begum's case has been determined."
Neither Ms Begum, nor Ms Begum's family were allowed to know the outcome of the case until this morning, Mr Furner said.
