Irish Centre for Human Rights Blog

Vebi Levni is a member of the Istanbul Bar Association and currently pursuing an LLM in International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy at the Irish Centre for Human Rights. Nicole Cumiskey holds an LLB from the University of Limerick and is currently pursuing an LLM in International Human Rights Law at the Irish Centre for Human Rights. Nicole previously worked as a legal advisor at the Refugee Rights Unit at the University of Cape Town South Africa.

–

Legal Battles and Court Defeats in the UK

The UK government’s decision to revoke Ms. Shamima Begum’s citizenship was unprecedented. Ms. Begum was the first ever British woman revoked of her citizenship (Mercedes and Salvador 2020, p. 342). Under British law, the Home Secretary has the power to revoke citizenship if it’s “conducive to the public good,” and provided it doesn’t render them stateless​ (Section 40 (2), (4) of the British Nationality Act 1981). Home Secretary Mr. Sajid Javid justified the decision by asserting, “The Home Secretary is responsible for the security of our citizens and borders, and therefore should have the power to decide whether anyone posing a serious threat… can enter our country.” Javid framed Ms. Begum’s situation as a self-inflicted consequence of “the extreme actions that she and others have taken” through involvement with Da’esh (also known as ISIS or IS) (ITV, 2021).

Ms. Begum’s lawyer quickly launched appeals, setting off a protracted legal battle through the British courts. Her first challenge was heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (hereinafter, “SIAC”), a tribunal that deals with national security cases, often behind closed doors (Seoyoung Hong 2021, p. 5). Ms. Begum initially had no way to appear in person or give evidence from her tent in Northeastern Syria – a point that her legal team argued made it impossible for her to get a fair hearing (Begum v. Secretary of State, 2021, para 3). In 2020, the Court of Appeal agreed that Ms. Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to pursue her appeal, citing fundamental fairness (Statelessness, Case Law Database). However, the UK government vehemently opposed her return, and in February 2021 the Supreme Court unanimously overruled the lower court​. The Supreme Court decided that national security concerns outweighed Ms. Begum’s right to a fair in-person appeal (Supreme Court [2021] UKSC 7 paras. 91, 137), effectively barring her from returning and freezing her legal challenge.

Ms. Begum then pursued her citizenship appeal through SIAC from abroad, albeit at a severe disadvantage. Her legal team raised multiple arguments ranging from procedural unfairness to human rights violations. However, in February 2023, SIAC dismissed her appeal on all grounds​ (Summary of The Decision Of The Court Of Appeal, 2024).  The tribunal concluded that the Home Secretary’s decision was lawful, even after considering evidence relating to her experiences in Syria. Ms. begum then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which in February 2024 upheld SIAC’s decision, again ruling that the revocation of her citizenship was lawful​. With that, Ms. Begum exhausted her legal options in the UK.

The Human Trafficking Defence: A Core Argument Rejected

One of the most contentious arguments in Ms. Begum’s defence is the claim that she was a victim of trafficking and that as a minor she was groomed or coerced into traveling to Syria for purposes of exploitation. Ms. Begum was 15, a minor, when ISIS recruiters convinced her and two other girls of similar age to leave their homes and join them abroad. She was married off within days of arrival, which her advocates say is evidence she was “groomed and trafficked to Syria” for sexual exploitation and domestic servitude.

In her appeal, Ms. Begum’s legal team leaned heavily on this trafficking narrative. Notably, SIAC acknowledged there was a credible suspicion that Ms. Begum had been trafficked to Syria​. Under international law and UK policy, authorities are supposed to support and protect trafficking victims, especially minors, not punish them. However, SIAC ultimately ruled that the trafficking evidence didn’t outweigh national security concerns. The judges decided that even if she had been exploited, the Home Secretary was still entitled to view her as a security risk first and foremost​ (SIAC Appeal No: SC/163/2019 paras. 219, 260, 412).

This sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the UK’s own anti-trafficking commitments. Under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, to which the UK is a party, “[t]he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child” under 18 “for the purpose of exploitation” qualifies as human trafficking. The type of exploitation does not need to be limited to sexual exploitation; it may include forced labour or other forms of coercion. However, the Convention explicitly recognises sexual exploitation as a form of exploitation under its definition of trafficking in Article 4.

UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children Prof. Siobhán Mullally and other human rights experts have expressed deep concerns in Ms. Begum’s case, noting that her “departure from the UK as a vulnerable child” was never properly investigated by authorities​. They stressed that under international, European and UK law,  questions of consent are irrelevant when the victim is a child as they cannot consent to being trafficked or exploited. From this perspective, whether Ms. Begum willingly left for Syria or not is beside the point; she should be treated as a victim of a child rights violation. The UN experts urged the British government to ensure Ms. Begum’s “protection and to follow the lead of many other governments who are now repatriating women and children from northeast Syria”.

The experts also highlighted the strict obligation of the State to prevent trafficking and protect victims or those at risk of trafficking, without discrimination on any grounds, including race or ethnicity, religion, or gender. According to former UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the claim of gender-neutrality in national security policies masks a deeper reality of structural gender bias embedded within government actions. Ní Aoláin points out that women are frequently seen as suspicious simply because of their familial or social connections to particular men (UN Report 2021 A/HRC/46/36, para. 11). While her observation focuses on excessive surveillance practices, this reasoning applies equally in here, where leading media outlets have largely defined her identity through the narrative of her presumed marriage and her husband’s extremist beliefs (Sarah St.Vincent 2021).

What Comes Next? The Road to Strasbourg and Final Reflections

Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have argued that “the power to banish a citizen … simply shouldn’t exist in the modern world”, especially in a case like Ms. Begum’s, “a person who was seriously exploited as a child”​ (Amnesty International 2023). Because of these concerns and the belief that Ms. Begum’s case represents a serious breach of fundamental rights, her legal team is now turning to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg as a final legal recourse​. The road to Strasbourg is a slow one but it represents a glimmer of hope for Ms. Begum.

The European Convention on Human Rights is binding on the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, which includes UK. Under British domestic law, the courts must “take into account” European Court of Human Rights judgments when interpreting Convention rights, but they are not bound to apply them verbatim (UK’s Human Rights Act 1998, Section 2). Hence the Court cannot “force” the UK to repatriate someone, but it can find that the UK breached its obligations and call on it to remedy that (Johan Callewaert 2014, p. 23-24). This means that while the Court’s judgments may not have direct enforcement mechanisms, they still carry significant weight and can influence legal interpretations and practices within UK’s legal framework. A ruling in Ms. Begum’s favour (if it comes) would be highly significant, legally and politically, and would put significant pressure on the government to revisit her case, which could include reconsidering her citizenship status.