Shamima Begum loses last ditch Supreme Court appeal against removal of British citizenship

7 August 2024, 11:26 | Updated: 7 August 2024, 11:44

The Supreme Court has refused to hear Shamima Begum's appeal against the deprivation of her British citizenship, seeing her case come to an end.

The court ruled "the grounds of appeal do not raise an arguable point of law.”

Ms Begum’s lawyers argued that the 2019 decision to revoke her British Citizenship was unlawful on four grounds.

Firstly, they argued she was trafficked as a 15-year-old, something authorities should have prevented.

Secondly, the legal team said Ms Begum had the right to speak to the home secretary before having her citizenship revoked, something she was denied.

But the Supreme Court said that right "would be liable to undermine the effectiveness of such a decision in cases concerned with national security"

Last year, Ms Begum lost her first appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship on national security grounds at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp following her travel to the country as a 15-year-old in 2015.

Earlier this year, three judges at the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed her bid to overturn the SIAC decision.

Begum travelled to Syria in 2015 aged 15 and her citizenship was revoked on national security grounds.

It came shortly after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.

Last year, the now 24-year-old lost a challenge against the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).

Her lawyers went on to bring a bid to overturn that decision at the Court of Appeal, with the Home Office opposing the challenge.

Speaking in February, Dame Sue Carr, who was one of the appeal judges ruling on the case, said that they agreed with the commission's decision on Begum's citizenship.

"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," she said.

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."

This is a breaking story, more follows…