Shamima Begum Loses Supreme Court Appeal Against Removal of Citizenship

Undated file photo of ISIS bride Shamima Begum. PA

Jihadi bride Shamima Begum will not be allowed to challenge the removal of her citizenship at the Supreme Court, justices have ruled.

Lords Red, Hodge, and Lloyd-Jones said in their decision published on Wednesday that Begum’s request was denied because “the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law.”

Begum’s lawyers had argued in a previous challenge at the Court of Appeal that the removal of her citizenship in 2019 due to national security concerns was unlawful on four grounds, including that Begum had a common law right to appeal to the home secretary in person before she was deprived of her citizenship.

However, the Supreme Court justices said on Wednesday there was no arguable challenge to the Court of Appeal’s decision, including that the right to appeal to the home secretary “would be liable to undermine the effectiveness of such a decision in cases concerned with national security.”

Begum’s Lawyers May Petition Strasbourg Court

Begum’s lawyers at Birnberg Peirce Solicitors said after the ruling that they were planning on taking further legal action, including petitioning the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Birnberg Peirce said, “It is a matter of the gravest concern that British women and children have been arbitrarily imprisoned in a Syrian camp for five years, all detained indefinitely without any prospect of a trial.”

The spokesperson said other nations have retrieved their citizens and their children from similar situations, noting that “two weeks ago the US State Department once again addressed the responsibility of countries to repatriate their nationals from the camps in north-east Syria. The UK is now alone in its position.”

“The Supreme Court has today left resolution to another court, this time in Strasbourg,” the statement continued, adding: “Whilst on behalf of Ms Begum we, her lawyers, will take every possible legal step including to petition the European Court of Human Rights, this is an issue that can and should as the US urges, be resolved for all nationals by their own countries.”

‘Groomed Online’

Director of legal charity Reprieve, Maya Foa, said that the UK should “take responsibility” for British nationals in Begum’s situation, saying if she had committed crimes, “she can be charged and prosecuted in a British court.”

“The UK is more than capable of handling the case of a 15-year-old schoolgirl who was groomed online by an organised trafficking operation,” added Foa.

Last year, the 24-year-old’s lawyers argued that their client had fallen for ISIS propaganda and had become the victim of “human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.”

However, Mr. Justice Jay, during the SIAC tribunal, had said that while there was a “credible suspicion” she had been trafficked, this was not enough for her appeal to succeed.

National Security

In 2015, 15-year-old Begum—along with classmates Amira Abase, 15, and Kadiza Sultana, 26—left London to travel to Syria via Turkey in order to marry ISIS terrorists. Begum had married Dutch jihadi Yago Riedijk and gave birth to his three children, all of whom died.

Begum was found in 2019 in a Syrian refugee camp. Both Sultana and Abase are believed to have died in the country.

Following concerns that her presence in the UK presented a threat to national security, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid stripped Begum of her citizenship, meaning she could not return to the UK. Her lawyers challenged the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), a challenge which she lost.

One argument Begum’s lawyers put forward was that depriving her of her British citizenship had made her “de facto stateless.” But in a preliminary ruling in February 2020, SIAC said the decision was lawful as she was “a citizen of Bangladesh by descent.”

The Court of Appeal then rejected her challenge to SIAC’s decision in February 2024. Shortly after in March, the Court of Appeal refused Begum’s lawyers permission to take her case to the Supreme Court, leaving her the option of asking the Supreme Court directly for her case to be heard.

‘Author of Her Own Misfortune’

It was during the Court of Appeal hearing that judges unanimously agreed that the Home Office’s decision to remove Begum’s British citizenship was lawful.

Dismissing Begum’s challenge in February, the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr had said: “It could be argued the decision in Ms. Begum’s case was harsh.

“It could also be argued that Ms. Begum is the author of her own misfortune, but it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view.

“The only task of the court was to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful. Since it was not, Ms. Begum’s appeal is dismissed.”

PA Media contributed to this report.