Shamima Begum’s British citizenship removing was ‘illegal’, Court of Appeal hears

The determination to take away Shamima Begum’s British citizenship was “unlawful”, a court docket has heard, as her newest enchantment towards the choice begins.

Ms Begum travelled to Syria in 2015 to affix Islamic State, when she was aged 15, and her UK citizenship was revoked on nationwide safety grounds shortly after she was present in a refugee camp in February 2019.

Earlier this 12 months, Ms Begum, now 24, misplaced a problem towards the choice on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), that means she wouldn’t be capable of return to the UK.

Delivering the ruling in February, Mr Justice Jay mentioned that whereas there was “credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation”, this didn’t stop then-home secretary Sajid Javid from eradicating her citizenship.

At the Court of Appeal in London on Tuesday, her attorneys started one other bid to overturn the choice – which the Home Office is opposing.

Her authorized group claims the Home Office failed to think about the authorized duties owed to Ms Begum as a possible trafficking sufferer.

Samantha Knights KC mentioned in written submissions: “[Ms Begum’s] trafficking was a compulsory, related consideration in figuring out whether or not it was conducive to the general public good and proportionate to deprive her of citizenship, however it was not thought of by the Home Office.

“As a consequence, the deprivation decision was unlawful.”

Addressing the SIAC’s conclusion that there have been “arguable breaches of duty” by state our bodies together with the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets council and Ms Begum’s faculty, Ms Knights mentioned these “failures” may have been illegal and contributed to Ms Begum being trafficked.

More UK information:
Tributes paid to man swept away in Storm Babet
Clown ‘stalking village’ again with a ‘message’

Lawyers for the Home Office have instructed the court docket that the SIAC final result was appropriate.

Sir James Eadie KC mentioned in written submissions: “The fact that someone is radicalised, and may have been manipulated, is not inconsistent with the assessment that they pose a national security risk.

“Ms Begum contends that nationwide safety shouldn’t be a ‘trump’ card. But the general public shouldn’t be uncovered to dangers to nationwide safety as a result of occasions and circumstances have conspired to offer rise to that threat.”

The listening to is anticipated to final three days with the choice to observe at a later date.