The Home Office has argued that there was no public law error in depriving Shamima Begum’s British citizenship and, even if there was, it would not have made a difference to the decision because of the ‘national security risk’.
A week-long appeal hearing about Begum’s revoked citizenship has been held at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). Parts of the hearing have been held in secret due to matters of national security.
Begum, who was born in the UK and lived in Bethnal Green, was 15 in 2015 when she and three school friends travelled through Turkey to ISIS-controlled territory in Syria where she married a fighter.
In February 2019, Begum was found pregnant in the Al-Hawl refugee camp in Syria. Her baby later died of pneumonia. That same month, Begum was deprived of her UK citizenship.
Begum’s lawyers argue that then Home Secretary Sajid Javid should have considered that Begum was trafficked to Syria when making his decision about her citizenship.
The state’s lawyers says this is not a trafficking case and Begum, who holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, still remains a risk.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Home Office, said: ‘The fact of the matter is she did go [to Syria], has been exposed [to ISIS] and the secretary of state had to make a decision.’
Speaking at an earlier hearing he said it was not disputed that somebody could be trafficked or brainwashed and ‘yet pose a danger.’
Mr Justice Jay told the court: ‘There was a lot feeling against Ms Begum. Since then, there has been a bit of a move the other way, but it is not for this commission to take any of that into account. We’ve got to be guided by the rule of the law, not guided by things of that nature.’
Eadie replied: ‘The public sentiment is irrelevant.’
The court heard that Begum was deprived of her British citizenship under section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 because it would be ‘conducive to the public good to do so’ as Begum ‘would present a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom’.
Begum’s lawyers argued that her being trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation and forced marriage should have been considered.
Eadie told the hearing that even if it was, it would not change the conclusion the state had reached in depriving Begum’s British citizenship.
Samantha Knights KC told the court that Begum was a child of trafficking, a consideration that was not taken into account when her citizenship was revoked.
Knights added: ‘We are saying [trafficking] needs to be factored in in considering if [deprivation of citizenship] is the right thing to do. The point here is just because Miss Begum is out of the country that the UK can say “we do not have to do any investigation, we do not have to consider trafficking at all” which is not the case.’
A written judgement is expected at a later date.
