Shamima Begum’s UK citizenship removal ruled unlawful by Court of Appeal
In the realm of legal proceedings, the 24-year-old petitioner has lodged an appeal against the verdict rendered by a specialized tribunal earlier this calendar year.
The determination to strip Shamima Begum of her British nationality was deemed illicit, as declared by the Court of Appeal.
Ms. Begum ventured to Syria in 2015, a mere 15 years old at the time, prior to her British citizenship being revoked on grounds of national security. This action was taken shortly after her discovery in a Syrian refugee encampment in February 2019.
In the earlier part of this year, the now 24-year-old faced defeat in her legal challenge against this decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
When delivering the commission’s ruling in February, Mr. Justice Jay asserted that, while there existed a “credible suspicion that Ms. Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation,” this did not impede then-Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, from nullifying her citizenship.
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 SAMANTHA KNIGHTS KC
Before the Court of Appeal in London, Ms. Begum’s legal representatives embarked on an endeavour to reverse this verdict, while the Home Office stood in opposition.
A trio of distinguished judges were apprised that the Home Office had neglected its legal obligations towards Ms. Begum, both as a plausible victim of trafficking and due to “state shortcomings” in her case.
Samantha Knights KC noted in written content: “The appellant’s trafficking was an imperative, pertinent factor in assessing whether it was in the public interest and proportionate to strip her of citizenship, yet it was not taken into account by the Home Office. Consequently, the deprivation decision was unlawful.”
Later, Ms. Knights and Dan Squires KC contended that the UK had not conducted a comprehensive and efficacious inquiry into how Ms. Begum was trafficked.
In an earlier pronouncement this year, SIAC determined that there were “debateable breaches of duty” by governmental entities – encompassing the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets council, and Ms. Begum’s educational institution – in not preventing her journey to Syria.
Ms. Knights apprised the Court of Appeal at the onset of the three-day hearing that these “shortcomings” might also have been illegitimate and contributed to Ms. Begum’s trafficking.
She continued: “The state lapses in this present case were remarkably relevant, considering the measures that state entities could have readily taken to safeguard the appellant and hinder her departure from the UK, as well as the alacrity with which the appellant’s family acted upon learning of her disappearance, and the type of action that could have been taken by the family in tandem with state entities, had they been apprised of the peril of the appellant departing from the UK.”
The Home Office’s legal representatives, poised to commence oral arguments on Wednesday, have apprised the court that SIAC’s conclusion was accurate.
Sir James Eadie KC, representing the department, stated in written form: “The fact that an individual becomes radicalised and may have been influenced, does not contradict the evaluation that they pose a risk to national security. Ms. Begum contends that national security should not be an absolute priority. Nonetheless, the public should not be subjected to hazards to national security due to a convergence of events and circumstances that give rise to said risk.”
Sir James also affirmed that the specialist commission “rightly acknowledged the core complexity of Ms. Begum’s case.”
He went on: “An individual could conceivably be influenced, radicalised, and have their travel to ISIL-controlled territory facilitated by another. However, this does not negate the assessment that the individual also presented a genuine threat to national security, regardless of whether or not this arose from those very circumstances.”
The barrister subsequently affirmed that SIAC was correct in asserting that there was “no direct correlation between any conceivable shortcomings, by other public authorities, in 2015” and Mr. Javid’s determination to strip Ms. Begum of her citizenship.
The hearing, presided over by the Lady Chief Justice Lady Carr, Lord Justice Bean, and Lady Justice Whipple, is slated to culminate on Thursday, with a verdict anticipated at a later juncture.
