Is Shamima Begum allowed back in the UK? The legal battle explained
The 24-year-old lost a Court of Appeal bid over her citizenship on Friday.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Shamima Begum, who had her British citizenship revoked after travelling to so-called Islamic State-controlled territory in Syria, has lost the latest stage of her legal battle with the Government.
The 24-year-old’s solicitor, Daniel Furner, said: “I think the only thing we can really say for certain is that we are going to keep fighting.
“I want to say that I’m sorry to Shamima and to her family that after five years of fighting she still hasn’t received justice in a British court, and to promise her and promise the government that we are not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home.”
Ms Begum travelled to Syria in 2015 aged 15 and her citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.
Here’s what you need to know and what happens next.
What was the challenge?
Ms Begum originally brought a legal bid against the Home Office over then-home secretary Sir Sajid Javid’s decision to strip her of her British citizenship on national security grounds in February 2019.
The case was heard at a specialist tribunal, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), sitting in central London.
Last February, members of the tribunal dismissed Ms Begum’s challenge on all grounds, with judge Mr Justice Jay finding that “reasonable people will differ” over the circumstances of Ms Begum’s case.
Following that decision, Ms Begum appealed against the SIAC’s findings at the Court of Appeal in October 2023.
Three appeal judges dismissed this appeal in a ruling on Friday.
What did the Court of Appeal decide?
In a 42-page public judgment, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said the decision to deprive Ms Begum of her citizenship was lawful.
The senior judge said SIAC could lawfully find “that the issue of whether and to what extent Ms Begum’s travel to Syria had been voluntary was within the expertise of the intelligence agencies advising the Secretary of State”.
Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Whipple, also found Sir Sajid “was aware of the circumstances of her departure to Syria, and the likelihood that she was a child victim of others who wished to exploit her for sexual or extremist reasons” when he made the decision to remove her citizenship.
What happened before?
Friday marks another major judgment in Ms Begum’s case.
In a preliminary ruling in February 2020, the SIAC ruled the decision to deprive Ms Begum of her British citizenship was lawful as Ms Begum was “a citizen of Bangladesh by descent” at the time of the decision.
The tribunal also found that she could not “play any meaningful part in her appeal and that, to that extent, the appeal will not be fair and effective”.
Ms Begum took her case to the Court of Appeal over whether she could return to the UK for the main challenge.
After the Court of Appeal ruled that she could return to the UK in July 2020, the Home Office challenged this decision at the Supreme Court.
In February 2021, the UK’s highest court said that Ms Begum should not be granted leave to enter the UK to pursue her appeal against the deprivation of her British citizenship.
In the SIAC’s 2023 judgment, Mr Justice Jay said the Supreme Court’s ruling had “complex ramifications”.
What happens next?
The question of whether Ms Begum and her lawyers attempt to bring a Supreme Court challenge over Friday’s decision remains to be answered, with a hearing over the consequences of the ruling due in the coming weeks.
Asked outside of court whether they intend to go to the Supreme Court, Ms Begum’s lawyers said they were not sure, as they had only received the judgment on Friday morning.
To appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision, Ms Begum’s lawyers would first have to ask for the green light to go to the UK’s highest court, as there is no automatic right of challenge.
What has the Government said?
The Home Office said it is “pleased” the court has ruled against Shamima Begum.
In a statement, a spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found in favour of our position in this case.
“Our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and we will robustly defend any decision made in doing so.”
And Downing Street also welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision.
A No 10 spokeswoman told reporters: “We’re pleased the court has found in favour of the Government. Beyond that I would just say that our priority remains on maintaining the safety and security of the UK.
“We’ll always take the strongest possible action to protect our national security and we never take decisions around deprivation (of citizenship) lightly.”
Sir Sajid reposted a previous statement he had made about Ms Begum’s case after the SIAC’s ruling last year.
In the post from February 2023, he said: “I welcome today’s court ruling, which has again upheld my decision to remove an individual’s citizenship on national security grounds.
“This is a complex case, but home secretaries should have the power to prevent anyone entering our country who is assessed to pose a threat to it.”