Shamima Begum's British citizenship removal was 'unlawful', Court of Appeal hears

As Shamima Begum's latest attempt to appeal against the decision unfolds, the court has become aware that the choice to strip her of her British citizenship was not legal.

In 2015, when she was 15 years old, Ms Begum went to Syria to join the Islamic State. In February 2019, she was discovered in a refugee camp and, due to national security reasons, her citizenship in the UK was taken away.

Earlier this year, a woman named Ms Begum, who is currently 24 years old, contested the ruling made by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) that prevented her from coming back to the UK. However, her challenge was unsuccessful.

Mr. Justice Jay declared in February that even though there existed a "credible suspicion" regarding the recruitment, transfer, and harboring of Ms. Begum for sexual exploitation, it did not stop the then-home secretary Sajid Javid from revoking her citizenship.

For better video playback, it is recommended to use the Chrome web browser.

On Tuesday, at the London Court of Appeal, her attorneys commenced a new effort to reverse the judgment, which is being opposed by the Home Office.

According to her legal representatives, the Home Office neglected to take into account their responsibility to Ms Begum as a possible victim of trafficking under the law.

According to Samantha Knights KC's written submissions, Ms Begum's forced movement was an important factor in deciding if it was appropriate and reasonable to take away her citizenship. However, the Home Office did not take this into account.

Therefore, the decision to deprive was illegal.

Ms Knights commented on the SIAC's findings that certain state institutions such as the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets council, and Ms Begum's school may have committed "arguable breaches of duty". She stated that these "failures" could have potentially violated the law and may have played a role in Ms Begum becoming a victim of trafficking.

Additional updates from the United Kingdom: Honorariums given to man who got washed away in Storm Babet and a clown who has been stalking the village has emerged with a particular "message."

Attorneys representing the Home Office stated in court that the SIAC decision was accurate.

According to written submissions from Sir James Eadie KC, it doesn't go against the evaluation that someone is a threat to national security just because they have been radicalized and potentially influenced by others.

Ms Begum argues that national security should not be used as a trump card. However, the safety of the public should not be put in danger due to situations and events that have led to such risks.

It is anticipated that the hearing will take three days and a verdict will be delivered at a future time.