Shamima Begum

The decision means Ms Begum remains barred from returning to the UK and stuck in a camp in northern Syria.

She married and later had three children, all of whom have died. “In all the circumstances... The court also rejected claims by Ms Begum that the decision to strip her of her citizenship was pre-determined, in breach of equality duties and family rights, and taken without proper consideration of the risk she might pose on her return home.

Shamima Begum was once a London schoolgirl until Scotland Yard raised concerns she and two of her fellow pupils had travelled to Syria in February 2015.

She told the podcast she accepted she is viewed “as a danger, as a risk”, but blamed her portrayal in the media. Ms Begum said there was “no evidence” she was a key player in preparing terrorist acts and was prepared to prove her innocence in court. She was dealt a fresh blow when the Supreme Court ruled she could not come back to the UK – leading to her begging the British public for forgiveness. They had three children together, who all later died from malnourishment or disease. Since then, the former IS bride has been embroiled in a battle with the British legal system – she lost her latest legal challenge over the decision to deprive her of her British citizenship on Wednesday. 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.

Shamima Begum's lawyers argued that the Home Office had a duty to investigate whether she was a victim of trafficking before stripping her of citizenship.

Reacting to the ruling, a Home Office spokeswoman said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government’s position in this case. He added that given Ms Begum was now in Syria, the Home Secretary was not compelled to facilitate her return nor stopped from using “deprivation powers”. Her fate is not widely known. She has been locked in a legal battle with the government ever since. But Mr Justice Jay said in a summary of the commission’s decision that the existence of this suspicion was “insufficient” for her to succeed on her arguments that the deprivation of her British citizenship failed to respect her human rights. On Wednesday, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission concluded there was a “credible suspicion” that Ms Begum was trafficked to Syria for “sexual exploitation” and that there were “arguable breaches of duty” by state bodies in allowing her to travel to the country.

Two years ago, Shamima Begum said she expected to go to prison if she was allowed back into the UK, but claimed the only law she had broken was travelling ...

Begum rejected accusations she carried out atrocities as part of IS as "all completely false". More than 100 people were stripped of their citizenship after going to Syria or Iraq to join the terrorist organisation. The commission recognised the "considerable force" in submissions advanced on behalf of Begum that the Home Secretary's conclusion that she travelled voluntarily to Syria was "as stark as it is unsympathetic". The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) concluded there was "credible suspicion" that Begum was trafficked to Syria for "sexual exploitation" and that there were "arguable breaches of duty" by state bodies in allowing her to travel to the country. While the appeal was dismissed, the tribunal concluded that there was "credible suspicion" that Begum was trafficked to Syria for "sexual exploitation" and that there were "arguable breaches of duty" by state bodies in allowing her to travel to the country. But Mr Justice May said in a summary of the decision that the existence of this suspicion was "insufficient" for her to succeed on her arguments that the deprivation of her British citizenship failed to respect her human rights, adding that given she was now in Syria, the home secretary was not compelled to facilitate her return nor stopped from using "deprivation powers".

Shamima Begum cannot come back to the UK after the court decision meant she has lost her battle for British citizenship eight years after she joined ISIS.

These extreme powers have been used almost exclusively against Muslims, mainly of South Asian, Middle-Eastern and African heritage, creating a two-tier citizenship system completely at odds with British values of fairness and equality before the law." Then in 2021, the Supreme Court overturned this, finding national security fears outweighed right to an effective hearing. Since 2000, the UK has deprived at least 212 people of citizenship: more than ten times as many as France or Australia. Begum's lawyer has said it’s far from over and will be challenging the judgement. [BBC](https://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/bbc) documentary, Begum said whatever happens she does not expect to be let back and regardless of the decision she believes she will remain in Syria. In 2020, the Court of Appeal gave her permission to return to the UK to appeal her revoked citizenship.

The British woman, who flew to Syria to join the terror group in 2015, has lost her appeal against the decision to revoke her UK citizenship.

She gave birth to her son, Jarrah, in al-Hawl in February of that year. While in Syria, Begum married an ISIS fighter and spent several years living in Raqqa. Begum, now aged 23, flew to Syria in 2015 with two school friends as a teenager join the ISIS terror group. Begum then reappeared in al-Hawl, a Syrian refugee camp of 39,000 people, in 2019. The following year, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, arguing that the Court of Appeal made four errors when it ruled that Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to carry out her appeal. In 2020, the UK Court of Appeal ruled Begum should be granted leave to enter the country because otherwise, it would not be “a fair and effective hearing.”

Amnesty International has criticised the ruling which followed a five-day hearing in November.

He continued in a 76-page public judgment: “This Secretary of State … In a statement Gareth Pierce and Daniel Furner, from Birnberg Pierce Solicitors, said: “The outcome is that there is now no protection for a British child trafficked out of the UK if the home secretary invokes national security. “The case against the Home Office is less clear-cut; the case against the Security Services appears thin.” Mr Justice Jay also said in a summary of the commission’s decision that the existence of this suspicion was “insufficient” for her to succeed on her arguments that the deprivation of her British citizenship failed to respect her human rights, adding that given she was now in Syria, the Home Secretary was not compelled to facilitate her return nor stopped from using “deprivation powers”. “In the commission’s opinion, there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation,” he continued in the ruling. Giving the decision of the commission, Mr Justice Jay said that the tribunal found that there was a “credible suspicion” Ms Begum had been trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation, “to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent”.

Begum's lawyers vow to challenge decision after court finds she may have been trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation.

“Ultimately, the commission has not been able to conclude … At a previous hearing in February 2020, SIAC ruled that the decision to remove her British citizenship was lawful as Begum was “a citizen of Bangladesh by descent”, but her lawyers said she had been made “de facto stateless”. Amnesty International UK said Begum had been left trapped “in a war-torn country and left largely at the mercy of gangs and armed groups”, and argued that anyone suspected of terror offences should be returned to their home countries for investigation and potential prosecution. But the court found that those factors were not a bar to citizenship deprivation, and that issues around whether Begum travelled to Syria voluntarily and poses a threat “are for the secretary of state to evaluate and not for the commission”. Mr Justice Jay said the SIAC had found the case to be “of great concern and difficulty”, and that its judgments had been “finely balanced”. A summary of the judgment said there was “credible suspicion” that Begum had been trafficked to

Shamima Begum was once a London schoolgirl until Scotland Yard raised concerns she and two of her fellow pupils had travelled to Syria in February 2015.

She told the podcast she accepted she is viewed “as a danger, as a risk”, but blamed her portrayal in the media. Ms Begum said there was “no evidence” she was a key player in preparing terrorist acts and was prepared to prove her innocence in court. She was dealt a fresh blow when the Supreme Court ruled she could not come back to the UK – leading to her begging the British public for forgiveness. They had three children together, who all later died from malnourishment or disease. Since then, the former IS bride has been embroiled in a battle with the British legal system – she lost her latest legal challenge over the decision to deprive her of her British citizenship on Wednesday. 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.

The 23-year-old is now unlikely to be able to return to the UK.

She joined the Islamic State terrorist group, marrying a fellow member shortly after her arrival in Syria. At a secret hearing in November, Begum challenged the removal of her citizenship by the U.K. Her citizenship was removed as the government judged her to be a threat to national security.

Responding to news that Shamima Begum has lost her appeal at the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal over the stripping of her UK citizenship, ...

Responding to news that Shamima Begum has lost her appeal at the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal over the stripping of her UK citizenship, Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty International UK’s Refugee and Migrant Rights Director, said:

Ms Begum, now 23, brought a challenge against the Home Office over this decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), a specialist tribunal ...

The judge said: “In short, the commission decided that a finding that Ms Begum has been trafficked does not operate as a form of limitation on the Secretary of State’s wide powers.” He said: “The commission has fully recognised the considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of Ms Begum that the Secretary of State’s conclusion, on expert advice, that Ms Begum travelled voluntarily to Syria is as stark as it is unsympathetic. Giving the decision of the tribunal, Mr Justice Jay said that “reasonable people will differ” over the circumstances of Ms Begum’s case.

Although court found there was 'credible suspicion' that she was trafficked for sexual exploitation as a child, it was not enough for her to win her appeal.

Every possible avenue to challenge this decision will be urgently pursued.” Ms Begum remains in unlawful, arbitrary and indefinite detention without trial in a Syrian camp. Money from shares contributes directly to keep our paper thriving. However the judge added that the commission was concerned by the security services’ “apparent downplaying of the significance of radicalisation and grooming, in stating that what happened to Ms Begum is not unusual.” “But the real point here is that, in the light of Begum, this is exactly the sort of issue that lies within the judgement of the Secretary of State and not the commission.” In its judgement, the commission concludes that there was credible suspicion that Ms Begum was trafficked to Syria for the purposes of sexual exploitation as a child.

Giving the tribunal's decision, Mr Justice Jay found that while there was a “credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for ...

It is commonplace that they succeed.” “But the real point here is that, in the light of Begum, this is exactly the sort of issue that lies within the judgment of the Secretary of State and not the commission.” Ms Braverman said: “My priority is, and always will be, the safety and security of the UK. Gareth Peirce, another of Ms Begum’s lawyers, called the decision “an extraordinary judgment delivered in an extraordinary way”. During the five-day hearing in November, Ms Begum’s lawyers argued that she should have been viewed as a victim of child trafficking and that she was “persuaded, influenced and affected with her friends by a determined and effective Isis propaganda machine”. “It was for those advising the secretary of state and not for the appellate tribunal to consider and assess whether Ms Begum’s travel was voluntary,” he said in a 76-page public judgment.

The 23-year-old has lost a challenge against the decision to strip her of her citizenship on national security grounds.

It is commonplace that they succeed.” “But the real point here is that, in the light of Begum, this is exactly the sort of issue that lies within the judgment of the Secretary of State and not the commission.” Ms Braverman said: “My priority is, and always will be, the safety and security of the UK. Gareth Peirce, another of Ms Begum’s lawyers, called the decision “an extraordinary judgment delivered in an extraordinary way”. During the five-day hearing in November, Ms Begum’s lawyers argued that she should have been viewed as a victim of child trafficking and that she was “persuaded, influenced and affected with her friends by a determined and effective Isis propaganda machine”. “It was for those advising the secretary of state and not for the appellate tribunal to consider and assess whether Ms Begum’s travel was voluntary,” he said in a 76-page public judgment.

Amnesty International has criticised the ruling which followed a five-day hearing in November.

He continued in a 76-page public judgment: “This Secretary of State … In a statement Gareth Pierce and Daniel Furner, from Birnberg Pierce Solicitors, said: “The outcome is that there is now no protection for a British child trafficked out of the UK if the home secretary invokes national security. “The case against the Home Office is less clear-cut; the case against the Security Services appears thin.” Mr Justice Jay also said in a summary of the commission’s decision that the existence of this suspicion was “insufficient” for her to succeed on her arguments that the deprivation of her British citizenship failed to respect her human rights, adding that given she was now in Syria, the Home Secretary was not compelled to facilitate her return nor stopped from using “deprivation powers”. “In the commission’s opinion, there is a credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred and then harboured for the purpose of sexual exploitation,” he continued in the ruling. Giving the decision of the commission, Mr Justice Jay said that the tribunal found that there was a “credible suspicion” Ms Begum had been trafficked to Syria for sexual exploitation, “to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent”.