AN ISIS bride who had her British citizenship stripped says it is “not fair” to stop her from entering the UK to appeal the decision.
Shamima Begum, now 20, was one of three east London schoolgirls who travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS) in February 2015, and lived under the terrorist group’s rule for more than three years.
She was found living in a “wretched and squalid” Syrian refugee camp while nine-months pregnant in February last year.
Then Home Secretary Sajid Javid revoked her British citizenship later that month.
Ms Begum took legal action against the Home Office and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in an attempt to keep her British citizenship last year.
Her claim failed as it was found that she was a citizen of Bangladesh and therefore not left stateless by having her British citizenship taken off her.
The tribunal also found that Ms Begum “cannot play any meaningful part in her appeal and that, to that extent, the appeal will not be fair and effective”, but ruled that “it does not follow that her appeal succeeds”.
Ms Begum’s challenge against the Home Office’s decision to refuse to allow her to enter the UK to fight for her citizenship was also rejected.
She is now arguing that it is unfair for her to have her citizenship stripped without being able to appeal it – claiming it should immediately be restored.
During a remote hearing in the Court of Appeal on Thursday, Tom Hickman QC said the key issue in her appeal was whether the absence of “a fair or effective means of challenging the decision to deprive her of her British citizenship” made the decision unlawful.
He told the court: “It is a basic principle of our law that executive decisions cannot stand where the requirements of natural justice are not complied with.”
Mr Hickman said that “in the present case there is a manifest breach of natural justice”, and that Ms Begum’s appeal against the deprivation of her citizenship should be allowed because otherwise it is not fair.
He said that Mr Javid had been informed that Ms Begum could not have a fair or effective appeal when he took the decision to revoke her British citizenship.
Begum and two pals – Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase – ran away to Syria in February 2015.
Begum used her elder sister’s passport to flee with her Bethnal Green Academy friends.
The trio flew to Turkey and then crossed the border into Syria with the aid of smugglers.
Within weeks of arriving, Shamima was married to Isis jihadi Yago Riedijk, 27, from Holland.
They had two children who died from malnutrition and disease.
The couple were separated as they fled Baghouz, the village where a few hundred Isis fighters were holed up in a desperate last stand.
Shamima ended up in a Kurdish refugee camp where she gave birth to her third child.
Eldest sister Renu revealed that her family had lost contact with her for the “longest time” until she was found by a Times journalist.
Mr Hickman said Ms Begum’s case was “the first case in which SIAC has held that an appellant cannot have a fair and effective appeal”.
He said banning Ms Begum from entering the UK “piles unfairness upon unfairness and is wrong in law”.
Mr Hickman pointed out that Ms Begum, who is still living in the al-Roj camp in Syria, was only 15 when she left the UK and had not yet taken her GCSE exams.
“The only things that are clear are that Shamima Begum was a child when she left the UK and had been influenced to do so,” he said.
Sir James Eadie QC, representing the Home Office, said in written submissions: “The fact that the appellant could not fully engage with the statutory appeal procedure was a result of her decision to leave the UK, travel to Syria against Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice and align with ISIL.
“This led to her being held in conditions akin to detention in a foreign state at the hands of a third party, the Syrian Defence Force.
“It was not the result of any action by the Secretary of State and the deprivation decision did not have any causative impact on the appellant in this respect.”
Sir James added that Ms Begum had been able to speak to her lawyers, and argued that “the fact that it might not be possible to mirror the level of access to legal advice that would be available if someone were at liberty in the UK does not mean the proceedings are unfair”.
Ms Begum was one of three schoolgirls from Bethnal Green Academy who left their homes and families to join IS, shortly after Sharmeena Begum – who is no relation – travelled to Syria in December 2014.
Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase, then 16 and 15 respectively, and Ms Begum boarded a flight from Gatwick Airport to Istanbul, Turkey, on February 17, 2015, before making their way to Raqqa in Syria.
Ms Begum claims she married Dutch convert Yago Riedijk 10 days after arriving in IS territory, with all three of her schoolfriends also reportedly marrying foreign IS fighters.
She told the Times last February that she left Raqqa in January 2017 with her husband but her children, a one-year-old girl and a three-month-old boy, had both since died.
Her third child died shortly after he was born.
The two-day hearing before Lord Justice Flaux, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Singh is being live-streamed on the judiciary’s YouTube channel, and it is expected that the Court of Appeal will reserve its judgment to a later date.
