Woman who went to Syria to join the Islamic State as a teenager cannot return to Britain, UK’s highest court rules

SHAMIMA BEGUN CANNOT return to the UK to appeal against the removal of her British citizenship, her High Court ruled.

Begum was 15 when she and two other students from East London traveled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State (IS) group 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Her British citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found nine months pregnant in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.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 remove his British citizenship and wants to be allowed to return to the UK to continue his appeal.

In July last year, the Court of Appeal ruled that “the only way you can have a fair and effective appeal is to allow you 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.”

Today, the UK’s highest court ruled that 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 Chief Justice said: “The right to a fair hearing does not prevail over all other considerations, such as the safety of the public.

“If a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be heard fairly, the courts usually cannot hear it.

“The appropriate response to the problem in the present case is for the deprivation hearing to be suspended – or postponed – 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.”

In the court’s written judgment, Lord Reed added: “Of course, it is true that a deprivation decision can have serious consequences for the person concerned: although he cannot become stateless, the loss of his 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.”