Shamima ‘at real risk of torture’
THE decision to revoke the British citizenship of Shamima Begum – one of three east London schoolgirls who travelled to Syria to join so-called Islamic State – has exposed her to a “real risk” of torture or death, a court has heard.
Ms Begum, now 20, left the UK in February 2015 and lived under IS rule for more than three years. She was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February this year.
Former home secretary Sajid Javid stripped her of her British citizenship, a decision her lawyers argue was unlawful as it rendered her stateless. Such a decision is lawful only if an individual is entitled to citizenship of another country.
Ms Begum is bringing proceedings against the Home Office before the High Court and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), a specialist court.
At the start of a four-day preliminary hearing in London yesterday, Tom Hickman QC told Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing that the situation in the al-Roj camp in which Ms Begum is currently being held is “incredibly fragile and dangerous”.
In written submissions, he described conditions at the camp, where Ms Begum’s third child died in March, as “wretched and squalid”, adding that “the tragic death of the appellant’s infant child ... demonstrates that fact”.
The court is being asked to determine “whether the deprivation decision rendered the applicant stateless”. The Home Office says the decision does not.
But Mr Hickman said Ms Begum – who is of British-Bangladeshi heritage – “is not considered a national of Bangladesh and was therefore rendered stateless”.
He submitted that the Bangladeshi courts “would determine that the appellant did not automatically acquire Bangladeshi citizenship having been born outside Bangladesh as a UK citizen by birth”. He referred to evidence from an expert in Bangladeshi law.2310
Mr Hickman said the court also had to decide “whether the deprivation decision gave rise to a real risk of death or degrading and inhuman treatment”.
He submitted that conditions in al-Roj – and in the al-Hawl camp from which Ms Begum was moved for her own safety in February – breached Ms Begum’s human rights.
Mr Hickman said SIAC “will not be considering the national security case against the appellant or the proportionality of the decision to deprive her of citizenship”.
In his written case, the Home Office’s barrister, Jonathan Glasson QC, argued that Ms Begum “was a Bangladeshi citizen by descent, in accordance with Bangladeshi law”.
He also submitted that Ms Begum “has not been placed at risk of ill-treatment” as a result of the decision to revoke citizenship.
“Any risk that the appellant does face arose, and continues to persist, as the result of the appellant having travelled to Syria and aligned with (IS),” he added.