Connect with us

Published

on

Shamima Begum has lost an appeal against the removal of her British citizenship.

The east London schoolgirl, now 24, travelled to Syria in 2015 at the age of 15, before her citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found in a refugee camp in 2019.

After a series of legal battles, Ms Begum lost a challenge at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in February last year – but took her case to the Court of Appeal in October.

This morning Dame Sue Carr, one of the appeal judges who ruled on the case, said that they agreed with the commission’s decision on Ms Begum’s citizenship and dismissed her appeal.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Shamima Begum loses appeal

The judge said: “Ms Begum may well have been influenced and manipulated by others but still have made a calculated decision to travel to Syria and align with ISIL [Islamic State].”

She added: “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.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Begum ruling: ISIS thrives in Syria camps

Ms Begum, who remains in a refugee camp in northern Syria, was represented at her appeal by Samantha Knights KC, who argued the government had failed to consider legal duties owed to a potential victim of trafficking.

But the Home Office, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, said the “key feature” of Ms Begum’s case is national security.

Ms Begum’s legal team is likely to appeal the latest ruling, with arguments over the consequences of today’s judgment adjourned for seven days.

Her solicitor Daniel Furner said “we are not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home”.

One of her lawyers, Gareth Peirce, told Sky News home editor Jason Farrell ahead of the hearing: “As long as she is there, it is not the end.”

Speaking after the ruling she said it was too early to say whether they would take the case to the Supreme Court but urged the government to follow other countries and repatriate Ms Begum without being forced by the courts.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found in favour of our position in this case.

“Our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and we will robustly defend any decision made in doing so”.

What are the arguments for and against her return?

Announcing the SIAC decision last February, Mr Justice Jay said “the real merits of Ms Begum’s case” involved her arguments that she had been the victim of trafficking.

The tribunal found there was a “credible suspicion” Ms Begum was “recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation”.

Read more:
IS bride insists she ‘didn’t hate Britain’
The problem with Shamima Begum’s case

Ms Knights and Dan Squires KC argued at the Court of Appeal that the UK has failed to have a “full and effective” investigation into how Ms Begum was trafficked.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

2021: Shamima Begum speaks to Sky News

However, the SIAC had also found that Mr Javid was not required to formally consider whether Ms Begum was, or might have been, trafficked when deciding to strip her British citizenship.

Sir James said: “The fact that someone is radicalised, and may have been manipulated, is not inconsistent with the assessment that they pose a national security risk.

“Ms Begum contends that national security should not be a ‘trump’ card.

“But the public should not be exposed to risks to national security because events and circumstances have conspired to give rise to that risk.”

In the 42-page Court of Appeal judgment, the judges said they were “not persuaded that there was any obligation on the secretary of state to take into account the possibility that there might be a duty to investigate the circumstances of Ms Begum’s trafficking.”

They found SIAC was entitled to find “that the issue of whether and to what extent Ms Begum’s travel to Syria had been voluntary was within the expertise of the intelligence agencies advising the secretary of state”.

Continue Reading

UK

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Published

on

By

Lingering dread over what else about Prince Andrew could still emerge

Just a cursory glance at the headlines, and it’s clear the disgrace and downfall of Prince Andrew is not over.

So what next for the man and the monarchy?

The King might have hoped his involvement showed direct action had been taken.

He certainly does not want any distraction from his upcoming state visit to the Vatican.

But that might be wishful thinking.

Now the Met Police has been dragged in too. Forced to look into reports in the Mail on Sunday that Andrew asked his protection officer to smear his accuser, Virginia Giuffre.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Police ‘looking into’ Andrew claims

The prince allegedly wanted his officer “to dig up dirt” and told an aide at the palace what he had done.

More on Prince Andrew

Let’s be clear: back then, Andrew’s security was funded by the taxpayer.

So are we reaching the endgame, and what does that look like?

Andrew might have given up the use of his title, Duke of York, and other honours too.

Read more:
Call for Prince Andrew to ‘live in exile’

How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
Everything we know about titles decision

But what about his style ‘prince’? Some want that ditched too.

It’s a complicated but not impossible process. Andrew could, of course, just stop using it voluntarily.

Some want him to give up his home, too. For a non-working royal, the stately Royal Lodge, with its plum position on the Windsor Estate, is an uncomfortable optic.

Andrew’s wider family is worried. The Sunday Times has reported that the Prince of Wales wants him cut off completely.

With the reputation of the monarchy at risk, William does not want to appear weak. He’s putting loyalty to “the firm” firmly above his familial relationships.

Prince Andrew has always strongly denied the allegations, and restated on Friday: “I vigorously deny the accusations against me”. Sky News has approached him for comment on the fresh allegations set out in the Mail on Sunday.

But with Virginia Giuffre’s tragic death and posthumous memoir due out on Tuesday, Buckingham Palace will be braced for more scandal.

When Andrew gave up his titles, there was certainly a sense of relief.

There is now a sense of dread over what else could emerge.

Continue Reading

UK

Why Andrew hasn’t given up being a prince – amid call for him to ‘live in exile’

Published

on

By

Why Andrew hasn't given up being a prince - amid call for him to 'live in exile'

Sky News’ royal commentator has explained why Prince Andrew has not given up being called a prince – while another expert has said “the decent thing” for him to do would be “go into exile” overseas.

Andrew announced on Friday that he would stop using his Duke of York title and relinquish all other honours, including his role as a Royal Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter.

However, he will continue to be known as a prince.

Royal commentator Alastair Bruce said that while Andrew’s other honours and titles were conferred to him later in life, he became a prince when he was born to Elizabeth II while she was queen.

He told presenter Kamali Melbourne: “I think […] that style was quite special to the late Queen,” he said. “And perhaps the King, for the moment, thinks that can be left alone.

“It’s a matter really for the King, for the royal household, perhaps with the guidance and advice of government, which I’m sure they are taking.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who pushed Andrew to drop his titles?

Since Andrew’s announcement, there has been speculation over whether any further measures will be taken – and one author has now called for him to “go into exile”.

More on Prince Andrew

Andrew Lownie, author of The Rise And Fall Of The House Of York, said: “The only way the story will go away is if he leaves Royal Lodge, goes into exile abroad with his ex-wife, and is basically stripped of all his honours, including Prince Andrew.”

Royal Lodge is the Windsor mansion Andrew lives in with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, who has also lost her Duchess of York title.

Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Andrew and his former wife continue to live on the Windsor estate. Pic: Reuters

Mr Lownie continued: “He makes out he’s an honourable man and he’s putting country and family first. Well, if he is, then the optics look terrible for the monarchy. A non-working royal in a 30-room Crown Estate property with a peppercorn rent.

“He should do the decent thing and go. And frankly, he should go into exile.”

Mr Lownie added if the Royal Family “genuinely want to cut links, they have to put pressure on him to voluntarily get out”.

Read more from Sky News:
How Prince Andrew allegations unfolded
William and Camilla’s influential roles

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Windsor’s take on Prince Andrew

Andrew’s decision to stop using his titles was announced amid renewed scrutiny of his relationship with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and fresh stories linked to the late Virginia Giuffre.

Ms Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein, alleged she was sexually assaulted by Andrew on three occasions – which he has always vigorously denied.

The former duke paid to settle a civil sexual assault case with Ms Giuffre in 2022, despite insisting he had never met her.

Continue Reading

UK

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Published

on

By

Families whose loved ones took their lives after buying poison online write to PM

Bereaved families whose loved ones took their own lives after buying the same poison online have written to the prime minister demanding urgent action.

Warning: This article contains references to suicide

The group claims there have been “multiple missed opportunities” to shut down online forums that promote suicide and dangerous substances.

They warn that over 100 people have died after purchasing a particular poison in the last 10 years.

Among those who have written to Downing Street is Pete Aitken, whose daughter Hannah was 22 when she took her own life after buying the poison from a website.

Hannah was autistic and had ADHD. She was treated in six different mental health hospitals over a four-year period.

Mr Aitken recently spoke to Sky News around the second anniversary of Hannah’s death.

More on Mental Health

He said: “Autistic people seem to be most vulnerable to this kind of sort of poison and, you know, wanting to take their lives.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Pete Aitken speaking to Sky News

Sky News is not naming the poison, but Hannah was able to buy a kilogram of it online. Just one gram is potentially fatal.

“There’s this disparity between the concentration required for its legitimate use and that required for ending your life. And it seems quite clear you could make a distinction,” Mr Aitken said.

Analysis from the Molly Rose Foundation and the group Families and Survivors to Prevent Online Suicide Harms says at least 133 people have died because of the poison. It also says coroners have written warnings about the substance on 65 separate occasions.

The report accuses the Home Office of failing to strengthen the regulation of the poison and says not enough is being done to close dangerous suicide forums online.

Lawyers representing the group want a public inquiry into the deaths.

In a joint letter to the prime minister, the families said: “We write as families whose loved ones were let down by a state that was too slow to respond to the threat.

“This series of failings requires a statutory response, not just to understand why our loved ones died but also to prevent more lives being lost in a similar way.”

Read more from Sky News:
Blood test for more than 50 cancers ‘could transform outcomes’

Warning of six million new cancer cases – with these areas worst hit
Hospital accused of ‘covering up’ concerns about suspended surgeon

The group’s lawyer, Merry Varney, from Leigh Day, said: “The government is rightly committed to preventing deaths through suicide, yet despite repeated warnings of the risks posed by an easily accessible substance, fatal in small quantities and essentially advertised on online forums, no meaningful steps have been taken.”

Hannah's dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter
Image:
Hannah’s dad is one of the family members to have signed the letter

A government spokesperson said: “Suicide devastates families and we are unequivocal about the responsibilities online services have to keep people safe on their platforms.

“Under the Online Safety Act, services must take action to prevent users from accessing illegal suicide and self-harm content and ensure children are protected from harmful content that promotes it.

“If they fail to do so, they can expect to face robust enforcement, including substantial fines.”

They added that the position is “closely monitored and reportable under the Poisons Act, meaning retailers must alert authorities if they suspect it is being bought to cause harm”.

“We will continue to keep dangerous substances under review to ensure the right safeguards are in place,” they said.

Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK.

Continue Reading

Trending