The Supreme Court heard the case of Shamima Begum, a young woman stripped of British citizenship after travelling to Syria to join Islamic State as a teenager. As well as considering whether it was lawful to deprive Begum of her citizenship, the Court will rule on whether Ms Begum can fairly and effectively appeal the decision to deprive her of citizenship without being granted leave to enter the UK.
BACKGROUND
Shamima Begum travelled to Syria with three school friends in 2015 in order to join Islamic State. She was 15 years old. She married a Dutch-born ISIL fighter and remained a part of Islamic State until she was detained by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in al-Hawl refugee camp. There, she was found by British journalists in 2019 – 9 months pregnant. This child, along with her two other young children died.
Begum was born in the UK and has only ever held British citizenship. Although her mother holds Bangladeshi citizenship, Begum herself had never applied for citizenship there, nor ever visited the country. Despite this, after her story made headlines in February 2019, then-UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid made an order to deprive Begum of her British citizenship on the basis that she could pose a threat to national security if she were to return to the UK.
Under both British and international law, a state may not remove an individual’s citizenship if by doing so would leave that individual stateless. However, Javid argued that Begum would not be left stateless as she would be eligible to claim citizenship in Bangladesh through her mother. Bangladeshi ministers responded that Begum would not be granted citizenship of the country.
From the al-Roj camp in Syria, where Begum is currently being held, she sought to appeal the order which deprived her of her British citizenship.
THE CASE SO FAR
In March 2019, Begum’s family launched a legal challenge against the deprivation of her citizenship, and in May 2020 Begum applied for leave to enter the UK to pursue her appeal. Leave to enter was refused by the Home Office.
In February 2020, Begum lost the first stage of her appeal before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). The Commission ruled that Begum had not been improperly deprived of citizenship and that although she may not be able to meaningfully participate in the appeal process, the substantive appeal could continue.
Begum’s lawyers pressed on with the case at the Court of Appeal, which partially overturned SIAC’s ruling. The Court held that Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the citizenship deprivation order; however, this judgment was stayed pending an appeal by the government to the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT HEARING
In November 2020, the matter was heard before the Supreme Court. Questions before the Court included whether the deprivation order was lawful, and whether Begum should be allowed leave to enter the UK to appeal the deprivation.
Sir James Eadie QC, for the Home Office, told the Court that Begum “poses a real and current threat to national security” which justifies removing her citizenship and preventing her returning to the UK. He emphasised that questions pertaining to Begum’s human rights should play no part in the case, particularly given SIAC’s ruling that the UK is under no obligation to protect Begum from human rights abuses in Syria, a country outside the jurisdiction of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Lord Pannick QC, representing Begum, argued that she could not play any meaningful part in her appeal case from the al-Roj camp, and that she must be granted leave to enter the UK to ensure a fair and effective hearing. Pannick claimed that national security concerns were not a valid reason to deny Begum her right to appeal, stating that the “requirements of procedural fairness cannot be overridden by national security without express statutory provision”. Home Office documents corroborated this argument, stating that “it is difficult to see how she might effectively exercise her right to appeal” while held in a SDF camp.
The charity JUSTICE intervened in the case, referring to the ancient common law doctrine of ‘allegiance’, under which the State has a duty of protection to its subjects – a duty which should not be displaced by statute. This duty means that Begum should retain the right to enter the UK and be granted access to justice by way of proper participation in her appeal process.
The Court heard arguments on 23 and 24 November and have reserved their judgment for a later date.
BEYOND SHAMIMA BEGUM
The Supreme Court’s ruling could have repercussions far beyond the case of Shamima Begum.
On 23 November, two women known as C3 and C4 began an appeal before SIAC against Home Secretary Priti Patel’s decision to deprive them of their British citizenship. Much like Begum, both women were born in the UK to parents of Bangladeshi heritage and allegedly travelled to Syria to join Islamic State. The Home Office argued that their eligibility for Bangladeshi citizenship prevents them from being stateless. Concerningly, both women were stripped of citizenship without being informed. Their families were also not informed. They were only made aware of the order when they asked the Home Office for help to return to the UK.
A Supreme Court decision in Begum’s case has the power to influence Home Office attitudes towards citizenship deprivation orders such as these – it will send a signal as to whether the courts will allow the UK to render its citizens stateless. This will no doubt have repercussions for the UK in the international legal arena.
Alice is currently studying the GDL at City, University of London and holds a BA in Classics from the University of Oxford. She is passionate about human rights, with a particular interest in refugee and migration issues.