In a pivotal legal battle, the decision to strip Shamima Begum of her British citizenship is being contested as “unlawful” in the latest appeal before the Court of Appeal in London. Ms. Begum, who journeyed to Syria in 2015 at the age of 15 to join Islamic State, had her UK citizenship revoked on national security grounds in February 2019 when she was discovered in a refugee camp.
Earlier this year, the now 24-year-old lost her challenge against the citizenship removal at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), rendering her unable to return to the UK. The ruling in February acknowledged “credible suspicion” of her involvement in activities linked to sexual exploitation but upheld the decision to strip her citizenship.
In the current appeal, her legal team argues that the Home Office overlooked the legal duties owed to Ms. Begum as a potential trafficking victim. Samantha Knights KC, in written submissions, asserts that “trafficking was a mandatory, relevant consideration,” yet it was not taken into account during the decision-making process.
Ms. Knights further addressed the SIAC’s acknowledgment of “arguable breaches of duty” by state entities like the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets council, and Ms. Begum’s school. These alleged “failures” are posited as potentially unlawful and contributing factors to Ms. Begum’s trafficking.
The Home Office, opposing the appeal, faces scrutiny over its handling of the citizenship removal and whether it adequately considered the circumstances surrounding Ms. Begum’s potential victimisation.
The case continues
