Fury as judges let jihadi bride return

Anti-terror chiefs fear up to 150 could try to follow her back here

THE decision to let jihadi bride Shamima Begum back into the UK could have dire implications for national security, counterterror experts warned last night.

MPs and victims of Islamic State atrocities reacted furiously after three Court of Appeal judges said she could return here from a refugee camp in Syria.

There were fears the decision could pave the way for 150 other IS fanatics to try to come back to Britain.

Begum, who left to join IS five years ago when she was 15, had been stripped of her British citizenship. But yesterday she won a legal challenge after judges ruled she had not been granted a ‘fair and effective’ appeal.

They said she should be allowed to return for a fresh hearing in a bid to overturn the Home Office’s decision. Yesterday, Downing Street said it was ‘bitterly disappointed’ by the ruling and Sajid Javid, the former home secretary who oversaw the removal of her citizenship, said he was ‘deeply concerned’.

The Home Office said it would appeal and attempt to ‘stay’ – or stop – the effects of the judgment. But, if an appeal fails, it is understood ministers are prepared to sanction extraordinary efforts to keep the IS collaborator out.

Sympathisers of the jihadi bride could risk up to 14 years in jail if they attempt to help her come back. A government source revealed a ‘simulation’ was carried out last year by intelligence experts at the Home Office, shortly after Begum was found in a Syrian refugee camp.

It concluded that anyone who assisted her return could be arrested under Section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The law sets out how it is a crime to ‘ fund’ terrorism and carries a jail term of up to 14 years. Funding could involve money or property – for example, a plane ticket.

Lord Carlile, the leading QC and former terror tsar, confirmed it had potential to be a viable tactic. ‘That is quite possible. I don’t think the Government is under any obligation to take extraordinary steps to bring her back.’

Richard Walton, former head of Scotland Yard’s Counter-Terrorism Command, warned it may not be easy to hold Begum behind bars. He said: ‘She would likely be arrested and charged with terrorism offences but the evidence against her could be weak.

‘If released, she would present an on-going threat and would need to be subject to rigorous monitoring costing the state hundreds of thousands of pounds over months and years.’

Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director of the counter-terror think-tank the Henry Jackson Society, said: ‘The deeply troubling implication of this judgment is that up to 150 terrorists are now legally entitled to enter the UK in order to appeal the decision in their case.

‘This decision could have dramatic repercussions for our entire counter-terror strategy.’ Sajid Javid tweeted he was ‘deeply concerned’. ‘Any restrictions of rights and freedoms faced by Ms Begum are a direct consequence of the actions she has taken, in violation of both government guidance and common morality,’ he said. ‘It is not clear to me why an appeal could not be made abroad using modern technology.

Reg Henning, whose brother Alan was beheaded by IS in 2013 after helping with an aid convoy in Syria, said: ‘She shouldn’t be allowed in – she’s made her bed out there. I’m concerned the case could lead to others like her also being allowed back. If they let one in, they’ll all come back.’

Robby Potter, one of the most seriously-injured people to survive the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing which killed 22, said of the Court of Appeal ruling: ‘It’s a joke. It’s as if we’re rewarding her for going against her country. Where’s the deterrent to others and how dangerous is she going to be if she’s allowed back?’

Begum’s father Ahmed Ali said he was ‘delighted’ by the ruling, and told the BBC he hoped his daughter would get ‘justice’.

Another relative, electrician Mohammad Rahman, whose brother is married to Shamima’s elder sister Renu, said: ‘Blood will always be blood. If I had a child who did this and she was vulnerable I would want to protect my child – but the law is the law and people need to respect that.’

In yesterday’s ruling, Lord Justice Flaux said: ‘Notwithstanding the national security concerns about Ms Begum, I have reached the firm conclusion that given that the only way in which she can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the United Kingdom to pursue her appeal. Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns.’

In February, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled the decision to remove Begum’s citizenship had been lawful because she was ‘a citizen of Bangladesh by descent’ and was, therefore, not made stateless. Her lawyers appealed last month.

Begum, now 20, was one of three east London schoolgirls who travelled from Bethnal Green to Syria to join IS. She finally re-emerged, four years later, in a refugee camp nine months pregnant. Her companions are all dead.

The father of a schoolgirl who was friends with Begum said she should stay in the Kurdish-run Al Roj camp, adding: ‘ Good riddance.’ Chauffeur Abdul Samid, 49, said: ‘If someone decides to leave the country and go somewhere they think they can serve better for what they believe in, then stay there.’

‘She would present an on-going threat’ ‘If they let one in, they’ll all be back’