Shamima Begum lost her appeal despite the fact that the court deemed there to be “credible suspicion” that she was trafficked as a kid for sexual exploitation.
Rights organisations have called the verdict, wherein SHAMIMA BEGUM lost her court fight against the decision to revoke her British citizenship, “extremely regrettable.”
Even though there was a “credible suspicion” that the 23-year-old had been trafficked to Syria as a kid, Mr. Justice Jay ruled the court today that this was insufficient evidence to support her appeal.
Because of the ruling, Ms. Begum will continue to be unable to travel back to the United Kingdom and will be imprisoned in a camp in northeastern Syria.
According to her attorneys, the battle is “far from over” and they will appeal the decision.
In 2015, Ms. Begum travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State group after leaving her east London home and two school companions behind.
She then wed an Isis fighter and gave birth to three children, all of whom passed away.
Sajid Javid, who was the home secretary at the time, revoked Ms. Begum’s British citizenship in 2019 for reasons of national security.
Later, after Ms. Begum’s attorneys filed an appeal with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the Supreme Court upheld that ruling.
The decision made today follows a second legal appeal by her attorneys.
Ms. Begum’s attorneys contended during the five-day hearing in November that the decision to strip her of her citizenship was made without taking into account whether she was a minor victim of trafficking.
They claimed that she and her pals were recruited by the terrorist organization to join Isis when they were just 15 years old.
A second court challenge by her attorneys led to today’s decision.
Ms. Begum’s attorneys contended during the five-day hearing in November that the then-home secretary had overlooked the possibility that she was a minor victim of trafficking when deciding to strip her of her citizenship.
They said that she and her pals were recruited to join Isis at the age of 15 by the terrorist organization.
In its ruling, the panel comes to the conclusion that there was a plausible suspicion that Ms. Begum was transported to Syria as a youngster in order to be sexually exploited.
Additionally, it found that governmental agencies’ permission for her to enter the nation constituted “arguable breaches of duty.”
But, Mr. Justice Jay determined that even if Ms. Begum had been a victim of trafficking, Mr. Javid still had the legal authority to deprive her of her citizenship for reasons of national security.
The judge found that the case was of “grave concern and difficulty,” noting that some would contend that a youngster who has undergone radicalization or brainwashing has become more difficult to deal with than an adult.
The main issue here, however, is that in light of Begum, this is precisely the kind of matter that should be decided by the Secretary of State, not the commission.
The judge did add, however, that the security services’ “apparent downplaying of the seriousness of radicalization and grooming, in indicating that what happened to Ms Begum is not exceptional,” concerns the panel.
Although the administration has praised the decision, rights organizations have repeatedly criticized the use of “racist” citizenship-removal powers.
The attorneys for Ms. Begum, Gareth Peirce and Daniel Furner, have requested that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, reexamine the situation.
“Unfortunately, this is a missed chance to right a serious wrong and a persistent injustice. Ms. Begum is still being held indefinitely, arbitrarily, and against her will at a camp in Syria. Every opportunity for contesting this choice will be vigorously sought.
They issued a warning that the judgement eliminates safeguards for British child trafficking victims in circumstances involving national security.
The director of Reprieve, Maya Foa, stated that notwithstanding today’s ruling, the government’s racist citizenship-stripping policy is still unworkable and seriously out of line with security allies like the US.
The last of our partners to refuse to repatriate its residents from northeast Syria is Britain, the only G20 nation to do so.
This is a very regrettable decision, according to Steve Valdez-Symonds, director of refugee and migrant rights at Amnesty International.
“The ability to expel a citizen like this should not exist in the modern world, least of all when we’re talking about someone who was severely exploited as a youngster,” the speaker said.
“The UK should be aiding any of its people stranded in Syria, just as other countries have done,” he continued, “including by assisting in their safe return to the UK, whether or not that involves facing potential criminal investigation or prosecution.”