Shamima Begum, the east London schoolgirl, who travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State (IS), should be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the deprivation of her British citizenship, senior judges have ruled.
The 20-year-old left the UK with two friends in February 2015, living under IS rule for over three years before she was found, nine months pregnant, in a refugee camp in February of last year.
In perhaps the most high profile use of citizenship deprivation powers in recent UK history, then Home Secretary Sajid Javid revoked Begum’s citizenship, arguing she had the right to Bangladeshi citizenship by virtue of her parents.
Shamima has never been to her parents’ home country and the Bangladeshi authorities have explicitly stated she would not be entitled to citizenship, meaning the Home Secretary’s decision makes Ms. Begum stateless.
Today’s decision by the court of appeal partially overturned an earlier ruling by the Special Immigrations Appeals Commission (SIAC) this year, which held that she had not been illegally rendered stateless.
As signatories of both the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the UK Home Secretary is bound to not revoking citizenship in cases where it will result in statelessness.
Speaking on the decision, Lord Justice Flaux, with the endorsement of two other judges said:
“Notwithstanding the national security concerns about Ms Begum, I have reached the firm conclusion that given that the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal, fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns.”
The government has already declared their intention to appeal the decision and have applied for the court’s judgement to be stayed until then. A Home Office Spokesperson said:
“This is a very disappointing decision by the court. We will now apply for permission to appeal this judgment, and to stay its effects pending any onward appeal.”
Citizenship deprivation
Ms. Begum is just one of a growing number of British-borns that have had their citizenship revoked since the start of the Syria conflict, that saw many leave Europe to join IS and other proscribed groups.
However, her young age and the loss of her son shortly after the revocation of her citizenship, meant her case garnered unprecedented levels of interest from the media and the wider public.
In an interview with Sky News she claimed she was “just a housewife” during her four years in IS’s self-declared caliphate. The government has consistently argued that she would present a significant threat that is not “conducive to the public good”.
Ms. Begum took legal action against the Home Office, claiming that the decision was unlawful because it rendered her stateless, exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and degrading treatment and that she should be allowed to appeal her case in the UK.
The February ruling by the SIAC tribunal found that while she “cannot play any meaningful part in her appeal and that, to that extent, the appeal will not be fair and effective…it does not follow that her appeal succeeds”.
A subsequent appeal to challenge the Home Office’s decision to refuse to allow her to enter the UK to effectively pursue her appeal was also rejected.
The Court of Appeal however ruled that:
“If the Security Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions consider that the evidence and public interest tests for a prosecution for terrorist offences are met, she could be arrested and charged upon her arrival in the United Kingdom and remanded in custody pending trial.”
With Lord Justice Flaux adding:
“With due respect to SIAC, it is unthinkable that, having concluded that Ms Begum could not take any meaningful part in her appeal so that it could not be fair and effective, she should have to continue with her appeal nonetheless…It is difficult to conceive of any case where a court or tribunal has said we cannot hold a fair trial, but we are going to go on anyway.”
Human rights organisation Liberty, which intervened in Ms Begum’s appeal, welcomed the ruling. Liberty lawyer Katie Lines said:
“The right to a fair trial is not something the government can take away on a whim..It is a fundamental part of our justice system and equal access to justice must apply to everyone…Banishing someone is the act of a government shirking its responsibilities and it is critical that cruel and irresponsible government decisions can be properly challenged and overturned.”
Women and Children in Al Hol
Overall there still remain 11,000 foreign women and children in Al Hol camp, all of whom are living in unsafe and overcrowded conditions. It has been over a year since the last stand of ISIS at Baguz and many have been in the refugee camps longer than that. Children and babies have suffered war, bombardment, malnourishment and now the Coronavirus with no hope of medical care. Humanitarian groups are no longer able to access the camps and Turkish backed militia threaten water supplies. Some of these children are British citizens but none of them have been offered repatriation flights Many have spent their whole lives in a warzone.
As of June 2020, local security forces are said to have begun a registration campaign for foreign women and children. They aim to count and register all of the inhabitants of Al-Hol camp and then allegedly improve their living conditions. France is the most recent foreign government of several who have already repatriated some of their citizens. They have recognised the importance of bringing children home to safety.
At least 60 of these children, almost all under 12, are born to UK nationals. The UK government can rescue them from this peril and bring them home to the UK now. In November 2019 the UK
Foreign Office proved that it is possible to achieve this goal when they repatriated 3 orphans, however most children in the camps are with their mothers.
Stripping their citizenship and abandoning them to their fate does not address the issue that without rescue and rehabilitation, they will potentially be reclaimed by the groups that many originally fled. The Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 20 (1) states,
“…a child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.”
What remains to be seen is whether the decision for Begum will set a precedent, allowing others who travelled from Britain to Syria to be repatriated, charged where there are any pending crimes and rehabilitated.
Image credit: BBC News