[ad_1]
Shamima Begum cannot return to the UK to appeal against the removal of her British citizenship, the UK Supreme Court ruled.
Begum was 15 when she and two other schoolgirls from east London traveled to Syria to join the militant group Islamic State in February 2015.
Her British citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found nine months pregnant in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.
Begum, now 21, is challenging the Home Office’s decision to withdraw her British citizenship and wants to be allowed to return to the UK to continue her appeal.
In July last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that “the only way you can have a fair and effective appeal is to be allowed to enter the UK to continue your appeal.”
The Home Office challenged that decision in the Supreme Court in November, arguing that allowing him to return to the UK “would create significant national security risks” and expose the public to “an increased risk of terrorism.”
The UK High Court ruled that Ms Begum should not be granted permission to enter the UK to make her appeal against the deprivation of her British citizenship.
In announcing the decision, Lord Reed said: “The Supreme Court unanimously allows all appeals from the Home Secretary and dismisses the cross appeal of Ms. Begum.”
“The right to a fair hearing does not prevail over all other considerations, such as the safety of the public,” Lord Reed said.
“If a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be heard fairly, the courts cannot usually hear it.
“The proper response to the problem in this case is to suspend – or postpone – the deprivation hearing until Ms. Begum is in a position to play an effective role in it without the safety of the public being compromised.
“That is not a perfect solution, since it is not known how long it will be before it is possible.
“But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the current kind.”
The High Court unanimously held that the Court of Appeal was wrong in concluding that Ms Begum should be allowed to enter the UK to continue her appeal against the removal of her British citizenship.
Lord Reed said the Court of Appeal “made its own assessment of the national security requirements and preferred it to that of the Secretary of State, despite the absence of relevant evidence before him.”
The judge added: “The approach of the Court of Appeals did not give the Secretary of State’s evaluation the respect it should have received, since it is the Secretary of State who has been charged by Parliament with the responsibility of conducting such evaluations. , and who is democratically accountable to Parliament for fulfilling that responsibility. “
In the written Supreme Court ruling, he said: “Of course, it is true that a deprivation decision can have serious consequences for the person in question: while they cannot become stateless, the loss of their British citizenship can have a profound effect. about your life, especially when your alternate nationality is one with which you have little real connection.
“But the annulment of the decision can also have serious consequences for the public interest.
“In such a case, it would be irresponsible for the court to allow the appeal without regard to the national security interests that motivated the decision in question, and it is difficult to conceive that the law would require it to do so.”
[ad_2]