Shamima Begum’s attorneys ‘won’t cease combating’ after dropping UK citizenship enchantment | EUROtoday

Get the free Morning Headlines electronic mail for information from our reporters internationally

Sign as much as our free Morning Headlines electronic mail

Shamima Begum has misplaced her bid to overturn the federal government’s choice to strip her of British citizenship, the Court of Appeal has dominated.

But her authorized workforce has promised they won’t hand over now regardless of one other blow for the 24-year-old on Friday.

The 24-year-old’s solicitor, Daniel Furner, stated: “I think the only thing we can really say for certainty is that we are going to keep fighting.

“I want to say that I’m sorry to Shamima and to her family that after five years of fighting she still hasn’t received justice in a British court and to promise her and promise the government that we are not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home.”

Ms Begum travelled to Syria in 2015 aged 15 and her citizenship was revoked on nationwide safety grounds shortly after she was present in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.

Last yr, she misplaced a problem in opposition to the choice on the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).

Ms Begum‘s lawyers brought a bid to overturn that decision at the Court of Appeal, with the Home Office opposing the challenge.

In a ruling on Friday, three judges dismissed Ms Begum‘s bid.

Giving the ruling, Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said: “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. Our only task is to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful.

“We have concluded it was not and the appeal is dismissed.”

Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, lawyer Gareth Peirce said: “Shamima Begum is held unlawfully in indefinite arbitrary detention, which is banned by every international treaty.

“She and others, other women and children, are in what is not a refugee camp but a prison camp, and that is conceded by the United Kingdom, which has stated to the UN that it agrees that Geneva Convention articles apply.

“Unlawful as that is, there is no exit. There is no way that she can escape from unlawful imprisonment.”

Ms Begum had travelled to Istanbul in Turkey from Gatwick Airport to join the so-called Islamic State (IS) with her close friends at Bethnal Green Academy – Kadiza Sultana, 16, and Amira Abase, 15.

Just 10 days after arriving in the city of Raqqa, Ms Begum, who is of Bangladeshi heritage, was married to a Dutchman named Yago Riedijk, who had converted to Islam.

They had three children together, who all later died from malnourishment or disease. They were a one-year-old girl, a three-month-old boy and newborn son.

She was eventually found nine months pregnant in a refugee camp in al-Roj in February 2019 by a Times journalist.

In the same month, she was stripped of her British citizenship after announcing her desire to return to the UK with her then-unborn third child.

Baroness Carr, sitting with Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Whipple, stated any arguments over the implications of the unanimous judgment, which might embody a bid to enchantment on the Supreme Court, can be adjourned for seven days.

She stated: “In our judgment, SIAC was entitled to search out, because the specialist tribunal established by Parliament, that the problem of whether or not and to what extent Ms Begum‘s travel to Syria had been voluntary was within the expertise of the intelligence agencies advising the Secretary of State.

“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.”

At a hearing in October, Samantha Knights KC told the court the government had failed to consider the legal duties owed to Ms Begum as a potential victim of trafficking or as a result of “state failures” in her case.

She said in written submissions: “The appellant’s trafficking was a compulsory, related consideration in figuring out whether or not it was conducive to the general public good and proportionate to deprive her of citizenship, nevertheless it was not thought-about by the Home Office.

“As a consequence, the deprivation choice was illegal.”

However, Sir James Eadie KC, for the division, stated selections over whether or not somebody is a sufferer of trafficking or whether or not they need to be disadvantaged of their citizenship “have fundamentally different bases and roles”.

He continued: “The focus in the trafficking regime is on the protection of the individual and there’s really no countervailing public interest at that point.

“But here the regime is different, the regime in operation is the deprivation regime and the rationale is entirely different, it is the protection of the public at large.”

The barrister later stated the “key feature” of Ms Begum‘s case was national security.

He continued: “The fact that someone is radicalised, and may have been manipulated, is not inconsistent with the assessment that they pose a national security risk.”

In its ruling last year, the SIAC concluded there were “arguable breaches of duty” by state bodies – including the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets Council and Ms Begum‘s school – in not preventing her from travelling to Syria.

Ms Knights told the Court of Appeal at the start of the three-day hearing these “failures” could have also been unlawful and contributed to Ms Begum‘s trafficking.

However, Sir James said the SIAC was right to find there was “no direct connection between any potential failures, by other public authorities, in 2015” and ministers’ choice to deprive Ms Begum of her citizenship.