The choice to take away Shamima Begum’s British citizenship was “illegal”, a courtroom has heard, as her newest enchantment in opposition to the choice begins.
Ms Begum travelled to Syria in 2015 to affix Islamic State, when she was aged 15, and her UK citizenship was revoked on nationwide safety grounds shortly after she was present in a refugee camp in February 2019.
Earlier this yr, Ms Begum, now 24, lost a challenge against the decision on the Particular Immigration Appeals Fee (SIAC), that means she wouldn’t be capable to return to the UK.
Delivering the ruling in February, Mr Justice Jay mentioned that whereas there was “credible suspicion that Ms Begum was recruited, transferred after which harboured for the aim of sexual exploitation”, this didn’t forestall then-home secretary Sajid Javid from eradicating her citizenship.
On the Court docket of Enchantment in London on Tuesday, her attorneys started one other bid to overturn the choice – which the Residence Workplace is opposing.
Her authorized staff claims the Residence Workplace failed to think about the authorized duties owed to Ms Begum as a possible trafficking sufferer.
Samantha Knights KC mentioned in written submissions: “[Ms Begum’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, but it surely was not thought-about by the Residence Workplace.
“As a consequence, the deprivation resolution was illegal.”
Addressing the SIAC’s conclusion that there were “arguable breaches of duty” by state bodies together with the Metropolitan Police, Tower Hamlets council and Ms Begum’s college, Ms Knights mentioned these “failures” might have been illegal and contributed to Ms Begum being trafficked.
Extra UK information:
Tributes paid to man swept away in Storm Babet
Clown ‘stalking village’ back with a ‘message’
Ms Begum was 15 when she left for Syria with two schoolfriends
Legal professionals for the Residence Workplace have instructed the courtroom that the SIAC consequence was right.
Sir James Eadie KC mentioned in written submissions: “The truth that somebody is radicalised, and will have been manipulated, just isn’t inconsistent with the evaluation that they pose a nationwide safety threat.
“Ms Begum contends that nationwide safety shouldn’t be a ‘trump’ card. However the public shouldn’t be uncovered to dangers to nationwide safety as a result of occasions and circumstances have conspired to present rise to that threat.”
The listening to is anticipated to final three days with the choice to observe at a later date.