Shamima Begum’s legal fight to restore her UK citizenship has received a big blow after the supreme court refused to hear an appeal.
Three judges from the UK’s final court of appeal ruled “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law”.
It confirms a previous ruling that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, had the power to set aside concerns that she may have been a victim of child trafficking when she left east London as a schoolgirl and travelled in secret with two friends to live under Islamic State in 2015.
Begum’s lawyers argued that the 2019 decision to revoke her British citizenship, which came shortly after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp, was unlawful on four grounds. They argued she was trafficked as a 15-year-old, which the authorities should have prevented. They claimed Begum had the right to address Javid before her citizenship was revoked, which was denied.
The supreme court said, however, that that right “would be liable to undermine the effectiveness of such a decision in cases concerned with national security”.
Begum’s lawyers confirmed that she is planning to appeal to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg.
“Whilst on behalf of Ms Begum we, her lawyers, will take every possible legal step, including to petition the European court of human rights. This is an issue that can and should, as the US urges, be resolved for all nationals by their own countries,” a statement from the legal practice, Birnberg Peirce, said.
Last year Begum, now 24, lost her first appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship on national security grounds at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac). Earlier this year, three judges at the court of appeal unanimously dismissed her bid to overturn the Siac decision. The Home Office also opposed the challenge.
Maya Foa, the joint executive director of Reprieve, said: “If Shamima Begum has committed crimes, she can be charged and prosecuted in a British court. The UK is more than capable of handling the case of a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was groomed online by an organised trafficking operation.
“Court of appeal judges recognised that Shamima Begum had her citizenship stripped for political reasons, not on the basis of national security, but concluded they were not able to check the extreme powers currently wielded by the home secretary. The supreme court has now agreed that, in practice, stripping Ms Begum’s citizenship leaves her stateless.
“Exiling British nationals like Ms Begum is about politics, not the law. The prior government’s failed do-nothing approach must be abandoned. Our politicians should take responsibility and repatriate the small number of British families in this position so their cases can be dealt with here in Britain.”
Speaking in February, Dame Sue Carr, who was one of the appeal judges ruling on the case, said they agreed with the commission’s decision on Begum’s citizenship. 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 Isil [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant].
“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.”
