How the Shamima Begum case forced the British government to admit its own security weaknesses

In winning its legal battle to stop Shamima Begum returning to the UK, the government was forced to make rare admissions over weaknesses in its ability to protect the public from terrorism.

One of its core arguments to the Supreme Court was that the former Isis member, who travelled to Syria aged 15, was dangerous and should be excluded from Britain for national security reasons.

Sir James Eadie QC, representing the home secretary, admitted that terrorists had been able to commit attacks even while being monitored by MI5, such as in the 2017 London Bridge attack and 2019 Fishmongers’ Hall stabbings.

He added: “Limits exist on the realistic ability of agencies to cover all of those people who pose a risk to national security in the UK. Resources are not unlimited.”

The Home Office was forced into an awkward position by Begum’s lawyers, who questioned why legal powers that it frequently assures the public to be sufficient against other terrorists were deemed inadequate in her case.

Lord Pannick QC, representing Begum, told the Supreme Court that the home secretary had relied on criminal prosecution and restrictions imposed under Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure (TPIMs) to manage the risk posed by other Isis returnees.

He argued that to claim that they were “not enough” for Begum was “contrary to what is happening in the vast majority of cases in which British citizens do return to this country after travelling to Syria and aligning with Isis”.

He cited a government document on foreign terrorist travellers from April 2019, which said that of around 900 people who joined the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, 20 per cent had been killed and 40 per cent had returned.

The document said that all returnees had been investigated “and the majority have been assessed to pose or a low security risk”, but that those remaining in Syria posed a greater threat.

Sir James said the security service assessment was that individuals who stayed with Isis for a significant period were likely to have an ideological commitment to the group, be desensitised to violence, and received some level of military training even if they were women or children.

“We assess that any individual who returns is likely to have developed a capability to carry out an attack independently,” he added.

open image in gallery

A summary of the Security Service case to remove Begum’s British citizenship, which was done by Sajid Javid in early 2019, did not mention alternative measures or their potential effectiveness.

In a July 2020 ruling, the Court of Appeal found that the national security concerns about Begum could be managed by a prosecution or TPIM, but in overturning its judgment the Supreme Court said there was “no basis” for that belief.

“There was no evidence before the court from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether it was either possible or appropriate to ensure that Ms Begum was arrested on her return and charged with an offence,” said the ruling.

“There was no evidence as to whether or not a TPIM could or would be imposed on Ms Begum, or as to the effectiveness of any such measure in addressing the risk which she might pose.”

The Supreme Court was not asked to balance the security threat potentially generated by leaving Begum and other foreign Isis members in Syrian camps and prisons.

Kurdish officials have repeatedly called for nations to repatriate foreign fighters and warned that they could not guarantee the security of prisons and detention camps after a Turkish-led invasion of northern Syria.

Some MPs have raised similar concerns, including former Conservative defence minister Tobias Ellwood.

He previously told The Independent the detention of thousands of jihadis and their families in Syria was creating conditions for an Isis resurgence, adding: “We’ll see Daesh 2.0.”

In 2016, a report commissioned by the UK government concluded that removing extremists’ citizenship may be an “ineffective and counterproductive weapon against terrorism”, by allowing jihadis to continue their activities abroad with insufficient monitoring.

While Begum’s case has come to a halt for now, debate over the most effective way to protect the British public from the threat she and others like her pose is sure to continue.