Shamima Begum, who left London when she was 15 to travel to Syria and join Islamic State, has lost a legal case over her British citizenship, meaning she will not be able to return to the UK.
Begum had her British citizenship stripped from her in 2019, on national security grounds by then-home secretary Sajid Javid.
Now aged 23, Begum brought a challenge against the Home Office over the decision to revoke her citizenship, however, it was dismissed by a specialist tribunal.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) concluded there was “credible suspicion” that Begum was trafficked to Syria for “sexual exploitation” and that there were “arguable breaches of duty” by state bodies in allowing her to travel to the country.
But Mr Justice May said in a summary of the decision that the existence of this suspicion was “insufficient” for her to succeed on her arguments that the deprivation of her British citizenship failed to respect her human rights, adding that given she was now in Syria, the home secretary was not compelled to facilitate her return nor stopped from using “deprivation powers”.
The Home Office has said it is “pleased” with the ruling, while Mr Javid said he “welcomes” it. Begum remains in a refugee camp in northern Syria.
Image: Begum and two other east London schoolgirls travelled to Syria to join IS in 2015. Pic: ITV/Shutterstock
At the five-day tribunal hearing last year, Begum’s lawyers said that she was “recruited, transported, transferred, harboured and received in Syria for the purposes of ‘sexual exploitation’ and ‘marriage’ to an adult male”.
They also argued that the Home Office unlawfully failed to consider that she travelled to Syria and remained there “as a victim of child trafficking”.
On Wednesday, the appeal was dismissed on all nine grounds even though SIAC found there was a “credible suspicion” that Begum had been trafficked to Syria.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:21
Begum case ‘nowhere near over’, says lawyer
Giving the decision of the tribunal, Mr Justice Jay said that “reasonable people will differ” over the circumstances of Begum’s case.
In its ruling, the panel said: “Essentially, and from the perspective of those responsible for the trafficking, the motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent”.
The commission recognised the “considerable force” in submissions advanced on behalf of Begum that the Home Secretary’s conclusion that she travelled voluntarily to Syria was “as stark as it is unsympathetic”.
Begum’s looking for a way out of strange purgatory but it looks like this is where she’ll stay
Since Shamima Begum emerged from the ashes of the so-called “ISIS Caliphate” in 2019, she has been in a Syrian detention camp and what she describes as “an unending sentence” that is “worse than prison”.
It seems that is where she will stay.
Lawyers for Begum essentially tried to make this a moral question and that rather than being seen as a traitor and a threat to the UK, she was more a manipulated schoolgirl, who was groomed into bad choices, in the same way, children groomed into county lines drug dealing are now recognised as victims of modern slavery.
Her lawyers have argued that when Sajid Javid revoked her citizenship, he had not taken into account that she was “a trafficked person,” for the purpose of sexual exploitation as an ISIS Bride.
The court was also told that she had been left ‘stateless’ and would face the death penalty if sent to Bangladesh, her parents’ country of origin.
However, government lawyers told the hearing that she went to Syria with her “eyes wide open” and that whatever the circumstances Begum remained a threat to the UK.
Today the special immigration appeals commission agreed with them.
Shamima is just one of many who had been looking for a way out of this strange purgatory. More than 100 people were stripped of their citizenship after going to Syria or Iraq to join the terrorist organisation.
Even if she had been able to reverse the decision it is worth remembering that several British women detained in Syria still have British citizenship but have not been repatriated.
Mr Justice Jay said: “Further, there is some merit in the argument that those advising the Secretary of State see this as a black and white issue, when many would say that there are shades of grey.”
Speaking after the ruling one of Begum’s lawyers, Daniel Furner, said the legal fight is “nowhere near over”, while lawyer Gareth Pierce added that “there’s no limit to the challenges” that can be undertaken.
Begum and two other east London schoolgirls travelled to Turkey and then to Syria to join the Islamic State terror group in February 2015.
In 2019, she was found at a Syrian refugee camp nine months pregnant and told the media she wished to return to Britain, the country where she was born.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:16
‘Begum appeal decision a surprise’
In a statement, a Home Office spokeswoman said: “The government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and we will robustly defend any decision made in doing so.”
Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s refugee and migrant rights director, described the Shamima Begum ruling as a “very disappointing decision”.
When Sky News last spoke to Begum in 2021 in Syria, she said she didn’t hate the UK, just her life at the time she left to join IS, and described living under the caliphate as “hell, hell on earth”.
Begum rejected accusations she carried out atrocities as part of IS as “all completely false”. She also added she expected to go to prison if she was allowed back into the UK.
Prince Harry has denied having a fight with Prince Andrew after it was claimed “punches were thrown” between the pair in 2013.
The allegations appeared in excerpts from a new book on the Duke of York being serialised in the Daily Mail.
It claims a row started after Prince Andrew said something behind Harry’s back, with Andrew “left with a bloody nose” and the pair needing to be broken up.
It also claimed the Duke of York once warned his nephew about marrying Meghan and suggested it wouldn’t last long.
However, a spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex strongly denied the claims.
“I can confirm Prince Harryand Prince Andrew have never had a physical fight, nor did Prince Andrew ever make the comments he is alleged to have made about the Duchess of Sussex to Prince Harry,” a statement said.
They said a legal letter had been sent to the Daily Mail due to “gross inaccuracies, damaging and defamatory remarks” in its reporting.
The book – Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York – is billed as the first joint biography of Prince Andrew and ex-wife Sarah Ferguson.
It’s said to be based on interviews with “over a hundred people who have never spoken before”.
He said his brother once knocked him to the floor amid a confrontation over Meghan’s “rude” and “abrasive” behaviour.
“It all happened so fast. So very fast,” Harry wrote in the book.
“He grabbed me by the collar, ripping my necklace, and he knocked me to the floor. I landed on the dog’s bowl, which cracked under my back, the pieces cutting into me.”
“I lay there for a moment, dazed, then got to my feet and told him to get out,” the prince added.
Harry claimed his brother wanted him to hit him back “but I chose not to”, and that William later returned and apologised.
The Duke Of Sussex has described his relationship with his family as extremely strained after he quit as a working royal and took legal action against the media, and over the removal of his UK police protection.
He claimed earlier this year the King wouldn’t speak to him and there had “been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family”.
Martin Lewis says motorists who were mis-sold car finance are likely to receive “hundreds, not thousands of pounds” – with regulators launching a consultation on a new compensation scheme.
The founder of MoneySavingExpert.com believes it is “very likely” that about 40% of Britons who entered personal contact purchase or hire purchase agreements between 2007 and 2021 will be eligible for payouts.
“Discretionary commission arrangements” saw brokers and dealers charge higher levels of interest so they could receive more commission, without telling consumers.
Image: Pics: PA
Speaking to Sky News Radio’s Faye Rowlands, Lewis said: “Very rarely will it be thousands of pounds unless you have more than one car finance deal.
“So up to about a maximum of £950 per car finance deal where you are due compensation.”
Lewis explained that consumers who believe they may have been affected should check whether they had a discretionary commission arrangement by writing to their car finance company.
However, the personal finance guru warned against using a claims firm.
More on Money
Related Topics:
“They’re hardly going to do anything for you and you might get the money paid to you automatically anyway, in which case you’re giving them 30% for nothing,” he added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:13
Who’s eligible for payout after car finance scandal?
Yesterday, the Financial Conduct Authority said its review of the past use of motor finance “has shown that many firms were not complying with the law or our disclosure rules that were in force when they sold loans to consumers”.
The FCA’s statement added that those affected “should be appropriately compensated in an orderly, consistent and efficient way”.
Lewis told Sky News that the consultation will launch in October – and will take six weeks.
“We expect payouts to come in 2026, assuming this will happen and it’s very likely to happen,” he said.
“As for exactly how will work, it hasn’t decided yet. Firms will have to contact people, although there is an issue about them having destroyed some of the data for older claims.”
He believes claims will either be paid automatically – or affected consumers will need to opt in and apply to get compensation back.
The FCA says you may be affected if you bought a car under a finance scheme, including hire purchase agreements, before 28 January 2021.
Anyone who has already complained does not need to do anything.
The authority added: “Consumers concerned that they were not told about commission, and who think they may have paid too much for the finance, should complain now”.
Its website advises drivers to complain to their finance provider first.
If you’re unhappy with the response, you can then contact the Financial Ombudsman.
Any compensation scheme will be easy to participate in, without drivers needing to use a claims management company or law firm.
The FCA has warned motorists that doing so could end up costing you 30% of any compensation in fees.
The FCA estimates the cost of any scheme – including compensation and administrative costs – to be no lower than £9bn.
But in a video on X, Lewis said that millions of people are likely to be due a share of up to £18bn.
The regulator’s announcement comes after the Supreme Court ruled on a separate, but similar, case on Friday.