What just happened?
Shamima Begum’s case has been unsettling to say the least. The British born girl has caused an uproar in debate as to whether it was acceptable for her to have her citizenship retracted and now, whether she should or should not be able to return to the UK to plea her case.
In 2015, Ms Begum, who was 15 years old, left the UK alongside two other schoolgirls to join the self-proclaimed Islamic State Terrorist organisation (ISIS) in Syria. ISIS have claimed responsibility for over 140 terrorist attacks worldwide[1]. These attacks include the Manchester Arena bombings which killed 22 people and injured 59[2].
What does this mean?
In February 2019, after years of silence, a newspapers correspondent found Begum in al-Hawl refugee camp in north-east Syria[3]. She was 19 years of age and 9 months pregnant with her third child. She told the correspondent that she had two children prior to this pregnancy, and both had died of malnutrition. Although she did not regret joining ISIS, she did want to return to England to raise her third child[4].
Shortly after this interview, the home secretary, Sajid Javid, wrote to Ms Begum’s family explaining how her citizenship had been revoked and she could apply for citizenship in Bangladesh, the birth home of her parents[5]. A few months after the announcement, Begum’s third child died due to the camp conditions[6]. Since then, there has been a constant debate regarding human right breaches; namely the alleged UK’s failure to protect her son and any breaches surrounding her citizenship being stripped and her right to a fair trial.
After countless appeals, Ms Begum’s lawyers argued that it was “unthinkable” that she should be forced to fight her case from a dangerous refugee camp in Syria[7]. So, in July 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that she should be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the Home Office’s decision to revoke her citizenship[8]. This way there could be a fair hearing.
However, on 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court overturned that decision and stated that the government is able to block her return which delays her ability to participate in the hearing[9].
Lord Reed stated, the Court of Appeals judgment "did not give the Home Secretary's assessment the respect which it should have received, given that it is the Home Secretary who has been charged by Parliament with responsibility for making such assessments, and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for the discharge of that responsibility”[10].
He added, the Court of Appeal had "mistakenly believed that, when an individual's right to have a fair hearing... came into conflict with the requirements of national security, her right to a fair hearing must prevail." He said the right to a fair hearing did "not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public"[11].
For said reasons, Ms Begum will not be able to enter the UK any time soon and this has sparked much debate over her right to a fair trial.
Liberty lawyer, Rosie Brighouse, argued, “The right to a fair trial is not something democratic Governments should take away on a whim, and nor is someone’s British citizenship. If a Government is allowed to wield extreme powers like banishment without the basic safeguards of a fair trial, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent”[12].
Others who have been banned from the UK, have managed to take part in their appeal from overseas. However, Ms Begum is in a unique position as the refugee camp she is staying at refuses to allow her lawyers to visit or for her to part take[13]. Therefore, the case must be put on pause until circumstances change. When this will happen is unknown.
Human Rights Watch have also commented saying that there is a ‘long term security risk’ for the UK and world if the UK do not bring Ms Begum back. They said, “Leaving them [Ms Begum] in detention camps leaves [her] vulnerable to radicalisation and the dire conditions can serve as a recruitment tool[14].
As a result, there has been this constant back and forth between what is the better thing to do. Does the Government allow her to return to the UK and jeopardise national security or put a pause on her trial and when the time is right, proceed with caution? Ideally, the government are dealing with the conundrum of protecting the UK or one individual. National security has always taken priority and should continue to be the forefront of the government’s action plan.
By Ammarah Kabir
Assessing firms:
#Dentons #Clifford Chance #Gowling WLG #Addison Aaron #Hogan Lovells International LLP #White & Case LLP #Baker McKenzie
References
1. Tim Lister et al, 'ISIS Goes Global: 143 Attacks In 29 Countries Have Killed 2,043' (CNN, 2018) <https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/world/mapping-isis-attacks-around-the-world/index.html> accessed 12 April 2021.
2. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/timeline-the-rise-spread-and-fall-the-islamic-state
3. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/16/shamima-begum-how-the-case-developed
4. ibid
5. ibid
6. ibid
7. https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/misuse-of-extreme-powers-latest-threat-to-rule-of-law-says-liberty-in-shamima-begum-case/
8. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/16/shamima-begum-how-the-case-developed
9. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0156-judgment.pdf
10. ibid
11. ibid
Disclaimer: This article (and any information accessed through links in this article) is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.