London (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Shamima Begum’s legal battle to revive her UK citizenship has received a big disappointment after the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.
What Was the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Shamima Begum’s Appeal?
Three magistrates from the UK’s final court of appeal stated that “the grounds of appeal do not raise an uncertain point of law”. It demonstrates a previous ruling that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, had the capacity to set aside concerns that she may have been a target of child trafficking when she departed east London as a schoolgirl and crossed in secret with two friends to live under Islamic State in 2015.
How Did Shamima Begum’s Lawyers Argue Against Her Citizenship Cancellation?
Begum’s lawyers claimed that the 2019 decision to cancel her British citizenship, which came shortly after she was discovered in a Syrian refugee camp, was banned on four grounds. They claimed she was trafficked as a 15-year-old, which the authorities should have stopped. They argued Begum had the right to address Javid before her citizenship was cancelled, which was denied.
The Supreme Court stated, however, that that right “would be liable to damage the effectiveness of such a decision in cases concerned with national security”.
How Did the Lower Courts Previously Rule on Begum’s Citizenship Case?
Last year Begum, now 24, lost her first request against the decision to cancel her citizenship on national security grounds at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Siac). Earlier this year, three judges at the court of appeal unanimously disregarded her bid to overturn the Siac decision. The Home Office also resisted the challenge.
What Did Reprieve’s Maya Foa Say About the Citizenship Decision?
Maya Foa, the joint executive director of Reprieve, stated: “If Shamima Begum has committed crimes, she can be charged and prosecuted in a British court. The UK is more than competent in handling the issue of a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was groomed online by a methodical trafficking operation.
“Court of appeal judges admitted that Shamima Begum had her citizenship stripped for political reasons, not established on national security, but concluded they were not able to correspond the extreme powers currently exerted by the home secretary. The Supreme Court has now decided 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.”
How Did Dame Sue Carr Justify the Decision on Begum’s Citizenship?
Speaking in February, Dame Sue Carr, who was one of the plea judges ruling on the case, stated they settled with the commission’s decision on Begum’s citizenship. She stated: “Ms Begum may well have been exploited and manipulated by others but still have made a calculated conclusion to travel to Syria and align with ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant].
“It could be discussed the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be claimed that Ms Begum is the author of her misfortune. But it is not for this court to approve or disagree with either point of view. The only task of the bench was to assess whether the deprivation conclusion was unlawful. Since it was not, Ms Begum’s appeal is dismissed.”