Shamima Begum loses first stage of legal challenge against decision to revoke British citizenship

Shamima Begum has lost the first stage of a legal challenge against the decision to revoke her British citizenship.

The 20-year-old was one of three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green Academy in east London to leave the UK to join Isis in Syria in February 2015.

Former home secretary Sajid Javid stripped her of her British citizenship last year after she was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp.

Her lawyers argued the decision was unlawful because it rendered her stateless and exposed her to a “real risk” of torture or death.

Ms Begum, who was born in the UK and is of British-Bangladeshi heritage, took legal action against the Home Office at the High Court and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) last year.

However on Friday the tribunal, led by SIAC president Ms Justice Elisabeth Laing, ruled that Ms Begum was “a citizen of Bangladesh by descent” and was therefore not rendered stateless.

And while her living conditions in the Syrian refugee camp breached article three of the European Convention on Human Rights, they did not breach the Home Office’s policy on the extraterritorial application of human rights, the tribunal added.

The tribunal concluded Ms Begum “was in that situation as a result of her own choices, and of the actions of others, but not because of anything the secretary of state had done”.

Ms Begum’s solicitor, Daniel Furner of Birnberg Peirce, said his client “will immediately initiate an appeal” against the decision “as a matter of exceptional urgency”.

He said the ruling “will be hard to explain to her”, adding: “The logic of the decision will appear baffling, accepting as it does the key underlying factual assessments of extreme danger and extreme unfairness and yet declining to provide any legal remedy.”

Mr Furner added: “The stark reality of her situation was brought before the court last year as a matter of exceptional urgency – how could she in any meaningful and fair way challenge the decision to deprive her of her nationality, a young woman in grave danger who had by then lost her three children?

“As matters stand, Ms Begum’s right to pursue an appeal against the home secretary’s deprivation of her citizenship has been in effect rendered meaningless.”

Ms Begum was 15 when she boarded a flight from Gatwick airport to Istanbul, Turkey, with Kadiza Sultana, 16, and Amira Abase, 15, on 17 February 2015. Another schoolfriend, Sharmeena Begum, had previously travelled to Syria in December 2014.

She claims she married Dutch convert Yago Riedijk 10 days after arriving in Raqqa in Syria. All three of her schoolfriends also reportedly married foreign Isis fighters.

Ms Begum remains in the al-Roj refugee camp, described in court as “wretched and squalid”. Her third child died in the camp in March shortly after birth. Ms Begum’s two other children with Mr Riedijk also died in Syria.

The government of Bangladesh has denied she is a citizen of that country.

Clare Collier, advocacy director at campaign group Liberty, said: “The fact the government has left a young woman effectively stateless shows how little regard it holds for fundamental rights. Shamima Begum should not be banished – banishing people belongs in the dark ages, not 21st-century Britain. This case is just one example of how quickly ministers use citizenship stripping when they could use other powers.

“It’s clear why they use these archaic banishments and that is to score political points and look tough on terrorism. It has nothing to do with making the public safe. In fact, this leaves us less safe as services are unable to conduct proper investigations that could help prevent young people, like Shamima, from entering terrorist circles in the future.”

Downing Street said the decision to revoke her citizenship was “not taken lightly”, adding: “We will always ensure the safety and security of the UK as a priority and will not allow anything to jeopardise this.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The government welcomes the judgment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on these preliminary issues.”

Additional reporting by Press Association