Kelly’s Eye

WHEN Shamima Begum was first discovered in a Syrian detention camp last year, I suggested that “however abhorrent the prospect, we shall have to take her back and clear up our own mess”. I acknowledged this might not be a popular view: “The reason why so many are rightly revolted at having Begum back in our midst is what happens to her and other British jihadists once returned.We have good reason to suspect that not much will be the ultimate answer.”

Fast-forward to the present day, and it seems I might be about to see my reluctant belief realised, after the Court of Appeal ruled she should be allowed back to contest the Government’s decision to revoke her citizenship.

What’s even more likely however is the vindication of those who have always feared the grotesque irony of this country’s customs and freedoms being taken advantage of by someone who loathed it sufficiently to wish us all murderous harm.

Public sentiment would perhaps be reassured if our laws on treason in such cases were updated, and then actually enforced, to ensure long sentences for those found to have plotted against the country of their birth.

But that won’t happen. Instead we know that not only will she stay here whatever the outcome of her appeal, but that the most Begum can expect in the event of any prosecution would be some form of monitoring, which might include restrictions on her movement.

The precedent set by her case would then see other jihadis allowed back, under similar circumstances, to join the 20-odd thousand suspects that the intelligence services have previously admitted they have to constantly keep tabs on.And it only requires one of those returning low-life to then commit an atrocity here.

In that eventuality, the leading appeal judge’s claim that “fairness and justice outweigh national security concerns” in Begum’s case will sound a lot more dubious than it already does.