Will Shamima Begum ever be allowed to return to the UK?

In the latest instalment in the saga of the east London schoolgirl who left the UK to join Isis nine years ago, the Court of Appeal has denied her bid to regain British citizenship. Sean O’Grady asks what happens now

Lady Chief Justice Carr announces the decision of the court to dismiss Shamima Begum’s appeal (PA)

Shamima Begum, the “Isis bride”, now 24 years of age, has lost her attempt at the Court of Appeal to overturn the government’s decision to strip her of British citizenship. Begum travelled with friends to Syria at the age of 15 without the knowledge of her parents, school or police, married an Isis fighter (a Dutch national), and became involved herself in supporting Isis as a law enforcer. She claims to have been trafficked and that she is the victim of abuse.

In February 2019, soon after Isis retreated from its “capital” in Syria, she was found in a refugee camp, and her UK citizenship was revoked shortly after. Since then she has conducted a legal and media campaign to have it restored and to return to Britain, where she was born. She has had three children, all now deceased. Thus far she’s enjoyed little success, or indeed sympathy.

Her solicitor Gareth Peirce states: “Shamima Begum is held unlawfully in indefinite arbitrary detention, which is banned by every international treaty. She and others, other women and children, are in what is not a refugee camp but a prison camp, and that is conceded by the United Kingdom, which has stated to the UN that it agrees that Geneva Convention articles apply. Unlawful as that is, there is no exit. There is no way that she can escape from unlawful imprisonment.”

Why was her appeal refused?

All but one of the grounds for her return cited by Begum’s legal team were rejected by the Court of Appeal. Her case rested on the following:

• That the home secretary had failed to consider whether Begum was a victim of trafficking
• That the suggestion that Begum was a victim of trafficking should have been considered by the home secretary
• That the home secretary failed to see that she was “de facto” stateless. Although it’s agreed that she had a potential claim or right to Bangladeshi citizenship via her family background, Bangladesh rejected the idea of her settling there out of hand. Thus she was being rendered stateless, contrary to international conventions
• That the procedures weren’t fair because she didn’t get to put her case forward in the UK
• That the home secretary had breached equalities legislation because Muslim people were disproportionately subjected to withdrawal of citizenship

The appeal judges rejected all but one of these arguments. They conceded that the procedures hadn’t been as fair as they ought to have been. On procedural fairness, they found that, even if Begum had been given a chance to make submissions, “the decision would inevitably have been the same”.

In short, they found that the assessment by the home secretary (Sajid Javid at the time) that she posed a threat to national security was valid.

What can Begum do now?

Her lawyers can seek leave to appeal, though experts have observed that in matters of fact and points of law, as opposed to “moral” considerations, it isn’t obvious what such an appeal would be premised on. The right is not automatic, but it is a high-profile case and something of a test of the legislation and its status next to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.

What will happen to her?

She will remain in Syria indefinitely, potentially at great personal risk depending on which jurisdiction(s) she finds herself living under. The Assad regime, for example, is not well disposed to former Isis supporters.

Why is there comparatively little fuss about her case now?

The saga has been going on for a long time and, so far as much of the press and those on the right of politics are concerned, the judges’ decision went the “correct” way – so there is no need to get outraged. In truth, given what we know about her activities as a sort of religious WPC in the so-called Islamic State, she’s nobody’s idea of a poster girl for human rights. As the judges remarked in passing, she may be the author of her own misfortune – but, as they added, that is not a matter on which they are required to arbitrate.

Is this a big political issue?

No, but it would have been massive had the judges gone the other way for any reason. If they had, in effect, allowed Begum to come back to the UK – if only to face trial – and to have her citizenship restored, it’s fair to say all hell would have broken loose.

Such a scenario would have played straight into the emerging “deep state” conspiracy mindset of Britain’s hard right – as enunciated most recently by Liz Truss – which warns of “lefty” judges acting against the will of the people and the national interest, possibly on orders from Moscow, Beijing or Tehran. It would have been a classic culture war “dividing line” issue, something about human rights being put before national security, and perfectly designed to wind up and confound the Labour Party.

So what does Labour say?

Not much these days. The Begum saga has been going on for so long that it’s passed under the purview of quite a few shadow ministers. In the past, Labour figures such as Jeremy Corbyn (as leader), Diane Abbott (as shadow home secretary) and Emily Thornberry (as shadow foreign secretary) have expressed the view that Begum should have been brought back to the UK to face justice, and as a British-born UK citizen.

The current shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, confined herself to saying that “it’s a matter for the courts”. Had Begum been on her way back to Britain, then that neutral line might not have withstood pressure from critics in her own party, never mind her political opponents. It seems the Labour front bench got lucky again.

What next?

If Begum’s lawyers get leave to appeal, then she has some slim hope of returning to the UK, where a trial and a potentially long prison sentence await her. If not, or if appeals all the way to the Supreme Court fail, then she will remain in the Syrian refugee camp until such time as she’s moved or the territory comes under the control of the Syrian government or another organisation. Her safety cannot be said to be secure in the long term. We’ve not heard the last of her.