In 2015, UK teen Shamima Begum travelled to Syria after being groomed online by ISIS fighter Yago Riedijk. Shortly after her arrival there, Begum married Reidijk and gave birth to three children, all of whom have now died. Begum’s case began attracting attention in 2019, when a British journalist discovered her in a Syrian camp. Following this, the Home Office quickly revoked her British citizenship. However, on 16 July 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled [1] that she should be allowed to return to the UK and challenge this revocation in court.
Begum’s legal team challenged the decision on various grounds, including “that it was unlawful because it left her stateless, it exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and degrading treatment, and she could not effectively challenge the decision while she was barred from returning to the UK”. In February 2020, Begum lost her case at first instance before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which decided that she had lawfully been made stateless, as she had a claim for citizenship in Bangladesh. However, authorities in Bangladesh have denied this.
In ruling that she is entitled to return to the UK in order to make her case against the Home Office decision, the Court of Appeal has reversed the SIAC finding. The court held that she was denied a fair hearing, as she could not effectively participate in her case from a Syrian refugee camp. It is likely the Home Office will appeal this to the Supreme Court, although it is not yet clear on what grounds.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF STATELESSNESS
Stripping someone of their nationality can have a major impact on their human rights. Under international law, it is only legal to do this if the person is entitled to citizenship in another country, which is why the Home Office has claimed that Begum is entitled to citizenship in Bangladesh.
Ultimately, nationality is an internationally-recognised human right. Deliberately making someone stateless is prohibited under article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Becoming stateless can have catastrophic implications for a person. For example, without a nationality people cannot travel, access healthcare or employment, and are often not able to support themselves.
Consequently, stripping someone of their nationality can have a direct impact on their other human rights. Some will argue that this is a just consequence for someone who decided to leave the UK and associate themselves with ISIS, a terrorist organisation. However, the decision to take away Begum’s British citizenship has been controversial. Many think that it punishes a victim of grooming, and that instead there should be a focus on repatriation, as is the case in some other countries.
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
This case could have a huge impact on the right to a fair trial. The Court of Appeal reasoned that Begum’s hearing would not be fair and effective if she could not fully participate. The judges emphasised that the national security concerns were far outweighed by the need for a fair and just trial. Ultimately, no one can effectively make their case in the UK from a refugee camp in Syria, especially when there is a lack of adequate technology.
Human rights group Liberty intervened in the appeal, stating that the right to a fair trial is not something the government can just take away. Rather, it is “a fundamental part of our justice system and equal access to justice must apply to everyone”. In order to have a fair trial, a person must be able to confer with their legal team, present evidence, and explain their story in their own words. Human rights lawyer Shoaib M Khan wrote that it is “perverse” for the government to not even allow Begum to enter the country temporarily to fight her case.
So far, both courts that have considered Begum’s case have accepted that without her presence, the hearing would be unfair. The recent decision is therefore seen as “a victory for justice and human rights” and sets an important precedent in relation to fair trials.
NEXT STEPS
The Home Office has already stated that it will appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision. This means that there is still a chance that Begum might not return to the UK. This reaction has, however, created some tension between the judiciary and politicians. The resolution of this tension may be significant to the separation of powers doctrine that underlines the UK Constitution.
The case has also sparked debate over whether those who leave the country to join terror groups such as ISIS should be able to return to the UK and appeal decisions to revoke their nationality. The final outcome could have a major impact on British families trapped in Syrian prison camps. These families are mainly composed of women and children who have been trafficked into Syria. Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director of the counter-terror think-tank the Henry Jackson Society, said that the recent decision means that up to 150 terrorists may now be able to enter the UK to challenge decisions in British courts.
If Begum is to return to the UK, her future remains unclear. Some say that a prosecution is unlikely, given the lack of evidence tying her to any actual crimes. In 2015, the Metropolitan Police gave assurance that she would be treated as a victim, as long as she did not commit any further offences. One likely route would be the issuance of a Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure notice, which could include restrictions on movement. Others say that Begum is likely to be arrested upon arrival and charged with terror-related offences. Whatever lies ahead now depends on the outcome of the upcoming Home Office appeal.
[1] Shamima Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 918.
Tanya is a Law student heading into the final year of her degree at the University of Manchester. She is interested in bringing attention to human rights issues arising from her Pro-Bono work at University (volunteering at the Legal Advice Centre and taking part in volunteering projects). Her main goal is to become a Barrister practising in either Criminal or Family Law.