Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK in order to appeal her citizenship decision.

17 Jul 2020, 56 mins ago

In February 2015, at the age of 15, Shamima Begum (‘Shamima’) was one of three schoolgirls who left the UK to join the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria. 

Shortly after arriving in Syria she was married and her two children subsequently died. Four years after her initial departure from the UK she was found by a reporter from The Times, pregnant, in a Syrian detention camp. 

She told the reporter of her desire to return to the UK to save her child who had not yet been born. Following this, her British citizenship was revoked by the Home Secretary on the basis of security concerns. Her case, which was widely reported, drew attention to the predicaments of children formerly associated with ISIS.

In accordance with international law, revocation of someone’s citizenship can only occur where that person is entitled to the citizenship of another country. Earlier this year the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that she had not been illegally rendered stateless as she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship (by descent) through her mother. However, the Court of Appeal has now partially overturned this ruling, having decided that she should be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the Home Secretary’s decision to revoke her British citizenship in person. Lord Justice Flaux stated that “[f]airness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns”. This judgment means that the UK government must devise a way of allowing Shamima to appear in court in London. 

The Home Office stated that the Court of Appeal’s decision was “very disappointing”. This case is an interesting example of the UK’s implementation of the system of the separation of powers. Whilst there is no absolute doctrine of the separation of powers, the UK’s concept is that Parliament, the executive and the judiciary each have their own parameters and each should exercise their powers accordingly. Whilst there remains an overlap between these pillars, the separation prevents the concentration of power and allows for checks and balances. 

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please don’t hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2020