![2[1].jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5abadf_f310244424a443b29215dadb17bba49b~mv2.jpg/v1/crop/x_5,y_0,w_1069,h_1080/fill/w_101,h_102,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/2%5B1%5D.jpg)
By Charlotte Gardner
Who is Shamima Begum?
Shamima Begum is the British-born girl who left the UK in 2015 at 15-years-old to join the Islamic State group in Syria.
Begum has previously had an engaging relationship with international media outlets, who had labelled her the IS poster-girl, following interviews in which she infamously stated having “no regrets” over her time spent with IS.
She is currently attempting to appeal the decision made to remove her British citizenship in 2019 after she was found in a refugee camp by a group of journalists. The controversial decision to revoke her citizenship was based upon UK security concerns following her public discussions on her time with ISIS. The UK government declared Begum a security risk and she was stripped of her British citizenship and refused further entry into the UK. She now resides in a refugee camp in Northern Syria.
There remains continuous legal debate surrounding the decision to remove Begum’s citizenship, mostly surrounding the belief that removing her British citizenship would render Begum stateless. Conflicting arguments exist as to the legality of the 2019 decision, as under section 40(4) of the British Nationality Act in 1981, no British citizen can be deprived of said citizenship if it were to leave them stateless.
What is her case? (Previous and current)
Her current case is actually a separate appeal against a decision made in June 2019 that denied Begum access to the UK in order to make an appeal to the UK Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) against the decision to revoke her British citizenship. Without entry to the UK, Begum argues her appeal cannot be adequately fair and effective, hence her decision to appeal the June 2019 decision that denied her ability to take part in her original appeal.
Whilst there are ongoing battles surrounding the legality of the decision to remove Begum’s British citizenship, the UK government argued that Begum, who is the child of two Bangladeshi parents, is also a citizen of Bangladesh and therefore removing her British citizenship was legal. Bangladeshi Law was utilised by the Home Office to support their decision, explaining that the Bangladeshi Citizenship Act 1951 acknowledges Begum as a citizen of Bangladesh due to both of her parents being citizens of Bangladesh at the time of her birth. Whilst dual citizenship is not allowed under Bangladeshi Law, this does not take effect until the subject is over 21, which at the time Begum was not.
However, even if the removal of Begum’s citizenship is legal, there are further debates as to whether the deprivation decision would breach Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Begum’s appeal is partly based upon the argument that her life is at risk following the deprivation decision. Although, it has been argued on several occasions that Begum’s treatment in a refugee camp is not altered by her citizenship, but rather by her previous actions, regardless of whether she is a British citizen or not.
It is additionally understood that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) does not have extra-territorial effect (providing a government’s ability to exercise authority outside its normal boundaries) concerning Begum’s case, therefore the UK government arguably does not need to pre-emptively decide if Begum’s life would be at risk if she were to be moved to another country when removing her citizenship. However, notwithstanding that the ECHR does not have extra-territorial effect, the UK Home Office has publicly that it is the practice of the Secretary of State to consider potential risks to the right to life or on the prohibition of torture with the deprivation of nationality, regardless of there being no official need to. Therefore, as this is common practice for the UK government, the risk to life if Begum were to be moved to Bangladesh or elsewhere must now be considered in Begum’s appeal against the deprivation decision.
Why is this relevant now?
The Court of Appeal ruled, on July 16th 2020, that Begum would be granted access to the UK in order to challenge the removal of her British citizenship.
The current situation is:
Begum’s lawyers attempted to argue that if her appeal is not adequately fair and effective (arguably Begum cannot properly conduct her appeal from within a Syrian refugee camp), then her appeal must succeed. This was decided to be a naive interpretation of the law and not granted in the July 16th decision, however, Begum was given access to the UK to continue her appeal.
The national security concerns have been deemed able to be ‘managed’ (Begum v SSHD), in which favour has been given to the ability to give Begum a fair and effective appeal, which is stated as only possible from within the UK.
The UK government’s response:
Posted to the Home Office’s blog on July 16th 2020:
“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.
“The Government’s top priority remains maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe.”
Comments