Shamima Begum: Government wins permission to appeal against ruling that Isis bride should return to UK

Begum to remain in Syria as previous judgment ‘stayed’ until Supreme Court considers case

The government has been granted permission to fight a ruling that Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to Britain.

The Supreme Court will consider whether the former Isis bride can enter the UK for a legal battle over the removal of her British citizenship.

The Court of Appeal ruled against the government by granting Ms Begum permission to launch a judicial review on 16 July.

But at a new hearing on Friday, judges said the home secretary’s case should be heard “as soon as reasonably practicable”.

Judges formally stayed the previous ruling, meaning that Ms Begum cannot currently return to the UK from Syria.

Lady Justice King said the case raised “points of law of general public importance” which should be considered by the UK’s highest court.

The judge also granted permission for Ms Begum’s lawyers to challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision that the absence of a fair and effective appeal did not mean her British citizenship should be restored.

The Court of Appeal heard that The Sun would be referred to the attorney general’s office for potential contempt of court proceedings because it published a story on the initial judgment before it was handed down.

Lady Justice King said the judgment had been circulated to parties in the case on 9 July and that either a copy of it or its “essential contents” had been passed to The Sun.

The judge added that “the article was removed during the course of the night” before the Court of Appeal gave its ruling, saying: “We intend to report that matter to the attorney general.”

The court heard that there was “no suggestion or accusation that it was the appellant [Ms Begum] or someone on her legal team who might be responsible”.

The Sun’s report, published the night before the ruling was given in court, cited “senior government sources” saying Ms Begum was “set to win a bombshell legal ruling”.

The Government Legal Department is investigating who may have leaked the ruling.

A spokesperson said: “Sir Jonathan Jones KCB QC conducted an investigation into the suspected breach of embargo and submitted a report. It would be inappropriate to comment further.”

Ms Begum, a former London schoolgirl who left the UK for Syria aged 15, lived under Isis rule for more than three years before being discovered in a refugee camp last February.

She was nine months pregnant when a journalist found her in the al-Hawl camp in northern Syria last year, and her baby son later died.

Sajid Javid removed her British citizenship and the government has used the same powers against dozens of alleged Isis members to prevent their return to the UK.

Ms Begum’s lawyers appealed the decision, accusing the government of making her stateless and exposing her to the risk of death or inhuman and degrading treatment.

They appealed to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) but it ruled the move lawful and said Ms Begum had not been made stateless in February.

But the Court of Appeal granted Ms Begum permission to launch a judicial review against that decision, saying the only way to have a “fair and effective appeal” over her citizenship was to pursue it in the UK.

“Ms Begum should be allowed to come to the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal albeit subject to such controls as the secretary of state [home secretary] deems appropriate,” a summary of the decision said.

In the full judgment, Lord Justice Flaux said national security concerns over Ms Begum “could be addressed and managed” in the UK.

He added that Ms Begum could be prosecuted if the threshold of evidence is met, or made the subject of a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures order if not.

In a judgment agreed by Lord Justice Singh and Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Flaux said that “fairness and justice” outweighed national security concerns in the case.

Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office, previously said the fact that Ms Begum could not fully engage in the appeal procedure was “a result of her decision to leave the UK, travel to Syria against Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice and align with Isil [Isis]”.

On Friday, he argued there was “a big issue at stake” over what principles should govern cases where people cannot have fair court hearings as “the result of going abroad and aligning with terrorist groups”.

SIAC ruled that the decision to revoke her British citizenship did not render her stateless and was lawful, as she was a “citizen of Bangladesh by descent”.

(ABC News)

But in February 2019, Bangladesh’s ministry of foreign affairs said she was not a citizen and there was “no question” of her being allowed into the country.

A statement said Ms Begum had never visited the country or applied for dual nationality, and that the government was “deeply concerned” over the British government’s claims.

Government guidance states that the home secretary can deprive citizenship for the “public good” if a person can apply for alternative nationality.

“This action may only be taken if the secretary of state has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of that country,” says a document published last year.

“In practice, this power means the secretary of state may deprive and leave a person stateless if that person is able to acquire (or reacquire) the citizenship of another country.”

The British government removed citizenship from 139 people “for the public good” between January 2016 and December 2018.

The figure for 2019, when Ms Begum and other alleged Isis members including Jack Letts were deprived of citizenship, has not yet been published.