The UK Supreme Court on Wednesday refused Shamima Begum’s application for permission to appeal the 2019 decision to revoke her British citizenship, ruling that the grounds of appeal “do not raise an arguable point of law.” This decision marks the latest chapter in Begum’s prolonged legal battle, encompassing multiple appeals and judicial reviews against the revocation of her citizenship and her denied attempts to return to the UK.
Begum, who left the UK for Syria in 2015 to join ISIL, was stripped of her British citizenship in 2019 under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. She has since pursued various legal avenues to challenge this decision, including an application for leave to enter the UK under the Immigration Rules, which was dismissed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
Begum’s appeal efforts suffered a significant blow earlier this year when she lost her challenge at the Court of Appeal in February. The court unanimously ruled that she must remain in Syria, a stance reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal when it refused to allow her to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court in March.
The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Begum’s latest application was underpinned by four main arguments:
- Begum contended that the Secretary of State, when making the 2019 deprivation decision, should have considered her as a potential victim of trafficking under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court rejected this argument.
- She claimed she had a right to make representations to the Secretary of State before the citizenship deprivation, which the court also dismissed.
- She argued that the decision neglected the need to foster community relations as required by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, an argument the court found without merit given the national security concerns.
- Finally, she contended that the deprivation left her de facto stateless, which the court ruled as not raising any arguable point of law.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, Begum’s legal team has indicated their intention to petition the European Court of Human Rights, asserting that they will take every conceivable legal step forward (Telegraph).