Return of Shamima Begum? The UKSC to Hear the Home Office’s Appeal

Must Read

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court,...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was...
Moshiuzzaman
Moshiuzzaman holds a 2:1 LL.B degree from BPP University (UK). He is currently pursuing the CFA chartership and working as an independent legal researcher at the American Society of International Law (ASIL)

Follow us

The United Kingdom Supreme Court is to hear the case of Shamima Begum, the runaway British teenager who fled to join ISIS. The United Kingdom’s Court of Appeal, in July, had ruled in favor of Ms. Shamima Begum. The Court also allowed an appeal from the Home Office to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court.

Brief Background

Shamima was born in England to Bangladeshi parents. At the age of 15, she boarded a flight to Istanbul, in an attempt to reach Syria to swear allegiance to ISIS. She arrived in Syria in February 2015 and married Dutch-born convert Yago Riedijk, a convicted terrorist.
Four years later, Shamima resurfaced following an interview with The Times. At the age of 19, she was found in a refugee camp in north-east Syria. She revealed she was nine months pregnant and hoped to return to the UK to raise her child. She also stated that she had no regrets of joining ISIS.

Soon after her child’s birth, the UK government served notice to strip Begum of her citizenship through a deprivation order. Home Secretary Sajid Javed informed her parents that Begum could apply for Bangladeshi citizenship. Later in March 2019, her family challenged the decision, stating that it was unfair.

In May 2019, Begum applied for “leave to enter” [LTE] in the UK. This is a procedure under which a person who is neither a British or Commonwealth citizen, can apply to enter the UK on a conditional basis. The UK government rejected her application and there was an appeal against this decision. In October 2019, Begum appealed against the decision of the Home Office to revoke her citizenship and prevent her from returning to London. She alleged that she would be “stateless” and that the decision would risk “death, inhumane or degrading treatment”.

What happened in the Trial?

The appeal concerned the decision of the Secretary of State to (i) deprive Begum of her British citizenship (“the deprivation decision”); and (ii) refuse her application to leave to enter (“LTE”) the UK to pursue her appeal against the deprivation of citizenship before SIAC. This was a challenge to this decision by way of an appeal to SIAC. This was under s.40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 and s.2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.

In February 2020, SIAC issued three preliminary findings based on a hearing made earlier in October 2019. SIAC held that (i) the deprivation order did not make Begum stateless as she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship; (ii) the deprivation order did not breach government policy on breaches of human rights overseas – that is a breach of Art 2 or 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR); and (iii) it did not matter that she could not have an effective or fair appeal in her current circumstances.

A right to appeal against these findings could only arise when there was a final determination made by SIAC. Also, these findings could be challenged only through judicial review. Permission of judicial review was granted on issues (ii) and (iii). Moreover, permission to appeal against the LTE was also granted.

The (iii) finding by SIAC acknowledged the “unfair” and “ineffective” nature of her circumstances but still concluded against Begum. Much of the Court of Appeal’s [CA] analysis revolved around this issue alone [Para 92, CA]. However, Flaux LJ rejected the government proposed that unfairness was a result of Begum’s own doing. Similarly, the court was also critical of allowing her to appeal on the sole basis that she couldn’t play a meaningful part of it. This led the Court to consider an alternative – by allowing Begum the LTE to take part in her appeal.

Despite blatant blandishments of Sir James Eadie QC, representing the government, Flaux LJ held that the “only way in which there can be a fair and effective appeal is to allow the appeals in respect of the [LTE]” [Para 44, CA]. Acknowledging the potential security concerns, his Lordship stated that these concerns could be managed inside the UK by the relevant authorities – per se the Security Service (SS) and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), using a TPIM – a legal order from the Home Secretary, which can place an individual, considered to pose a security threat but cannot be prosecuted or deported [Para 66, CA].

Court’s Decision

For granting Shamima LTE the UK, she will either need a passport or travel document – neither of which is available to her. The CA appears to have proceeded on the basis that Begum would be able to get a Uniform Format Forum (UFF) travel document from the Kurdish authorities. Whether this can take place remains to be seen. The Home Office has appealed to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

Besides, the prospects of her returning and stay once back remains slim. As stated earlier, Begum did not appeal to the finding of her being a Bangladeshi citizen. This, thus, throws out her argument of statelessness. But to keep her British citizenship, she has to establish she no longer poses a security threat, or that her human rights were not violated as per finding (ii). Yet, the challenge of the situation is that once she arrives back in the UK, it would be impossible to remove her. This is because she would have no basis to return to Syria, even Bangladesh. This is because the Bangladeshi authorities have confirmed they will not allow her to enter Bangladesh.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

“Anganwadi Centers to Be Reopened Outside the Containment Zones, Which Is to Be Decided by the State”: Supreme Court

This case concerns the reopening of the Anganwadi Centers after they had been closed due to the lockdown being imposed.  Brief facts of the case This...

“Credit Facilities Being Granted by the Primary Agricultural Credit Society to the Non-Members Is No Longer Illegal”: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the dispute relating to the grant of tax exemption under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961.  Brief facts of the...

Back Wages of Labourers is a Question of Facts Depending Upon Various Factors: Gujarat High Court

The petition has been filed by workmen and employer against an award dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Labour Court, Bhuj in the case of...

WhatsApp Messages Would Have No Evidentiary Value Until They Are Certified According to Section 65b of the Indian Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High...

Brief facts of the case Paramjit Kaur, the proprietor of Brioshine Pharma, a licensed chemist, booked two consignments. The first consignment, on 10.06.2020 and the,...

Delhi High Court Seeks Response From Centre, RBI in PIL to Regulate Online Lending Platforms

A notice had been issued by the Delhi HC in a PIL that sought regulation of online lending platforms (Dharanidhar Karimojji vs UOI). Brief Facts: The...

“Consensual Affair” Cannot Be Defence Against the Charge of Kidnapping of the Minor, Sentence Reduced in View of Age Difference: Supreme Court

This Case concerns the appeal against the conviction under the charges of kidnapping and discussed whether the punishment was to be enhanced or not.   Brief...

Delhi HC to Municipal Corp: Paucity of Funds Not an Excuse for Non-Payment of Salaries and Pensions

The Delhi High Court ruled that the paucity of funds cannot be an excuse and pulled up municipal corporations for not paying salaries and pensions to their employees as the right to receive payment is a fundamental right guaranteed in our constitution.

US Supreme Court Reinstates Restriction on Abortion Pills

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to reinstate federal rules requiring women to make in-person visits to hospitals...

Supreme Court Upheld “Environmental Rule of Law” in NGT Decision to Demolish Illegal Hotel on Forest Land

This case concerns the dispute relating to the additional construction of hotel-cum-restaurant structure in the Bus Stand Complex along with a bus stand and...

UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Policyholders in the COVID-19 Business Interruption Case

The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court finally concluded the long-awaited COVID-19 business interruption case brought by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Hiscox Action...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -