Court of Appeal allows Shamima Begum’s appeal

17 July 2020 by

Image: The Guardian

Begum v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 918

Early last year, after ISIL was dislodged from Raqqah, Shamima Begum was discovered in a refugee camp in Syria. When she expressed a wish to return home to London’s Bethnal Green, Her Majesty’s Government wasn’t welcoming. She had left to join ISIL and HMG did not want her back. It considered her a serious risk to national security and removed her British citizenship. It then refused her leave to enter the UK to appeal that decision. But the Court of Appeal, in the latest legal ruling on the case, has held that fairness requires she be permitted to return to participate in her appeal.

The Court’s decision overturns some, but not all, of the Judgment of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) delivered in February (and reported here).

SIAC had looked at three preliminary issues. Its ruling on the first is undisturbed: the loss of British citizenship does not render Ms. Begum stateless as she is entitled to Bangladeshi nationality through her Bangladeshi-born parents. On the second issue — a human rights challenge to the deprivation of citizenship decision — SIAC was found to have erred.

It is government policy not to remove citizenship if this gives rise to a real risk of mistreatment contrary to Article 2 (right to life) or Article 3 (prohibition of torture).

SIAC accepted that conditions were deplorable in the camp where Ms Begum was held by Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and met the threshold of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 ECHR. Ms Begum’s new-born child died of pneumonia there due to the lack of medical care.

But SIAC also accepted the Government’s position that because Ms. Begum’s presence in the camp was not the result of any decision or action by the Secretary of State, there was no breach of the policy: her treatment was the same before and after the removal of British citizenship.

SIAC took the wrong approach, the Court found, and so failed to adequately assess the issue of risk. 

The issue was not whether the Secretary of State’s position was reasonable and rational, as in a claim for judicial review. It was a full merits appeal which required a de novo assessment of risk.  SIAC had failed to evaluate whether the effect of the deprivation decision was to prolong Ms Begum’s detention in the camp in inhuman and degrading conditions.

Similarly, it didn’t adequately consider the risks associated with Ms Begum’s possible transfer to a third country, notably Iraq or Bangladesh. The Government’s own assessment recognised some risk but SIAC accepted its case that it wasn’t possible to speculate about what the SDF, a “non-state actor” might do with its detainees.

The Court allowed the challenge on the human rights issue and remitted the issue back to SIAC to consider afresh the question of risk.

The third preliminary issue was about exercising the right of appeal. In February SIAC found that “in her current circumstances” Ms Begum could not “play any meaningful part in her appeal” and “to that extent, the appeal will not be fair and effective”. But it did not grant her appeal against the refusal of entry to the UK so that she could play a meaningful part. It presented other “options”. These included pressing on with the appeal or staying it pending a possible change in her circumstances.

The Government did not cross-appeal SIAC’s finding on the lack of fairness. Before the Court of Appeal it suggested proceedings be stayed until Ms. Begum had access to a phone or some other means of giving her solicitor instructions. The Court rejected this and the other options presented by SIAC.

Having concluded that the appeal would not be fair or effective, pressing on was “unthinkable,” it said. Indeed, it would compound the unfairness. Staying the proceedings was also wrong. An important executive decision must be capable of challenge and delay didn’t take account of on-going risks of mistreatment.

But it would be equally wrong to accede to Ms. Begum’s submission that her inability to take part in the appeal required the quashing of HMG’s decision depriving her of citizenship. The statutory scheme did not provide a right to an in-country appeal. It recognised some appellants would be required to conduct their appeals from abroad. This may or may not give rise to unfairness. In other cases, cited to the Court, it had not.

The critical issue was to identify steps to “alleviate the unfairness and lack of effectiveness” in this case.

The Court recognised the Government’s national security concerns but observed that, on the facts before it (but “without prejudging the case”), these could be managed in the UK. If the evidence and prosecution policy warranted it, Ms. Begum could be arrested and charged on her arrival and remanded in custody pending trial. Or, if that were not feasible, she could be made subject of a TPIM (Terrorist Prevention and Investigation Measure) restricting her movement, contacts and residence, as required.

In allowing the appeal against the refusal of leave to enter the UK the Court ruled that

Fairness and justice must, on the facts of this case, outweigh the national security concerns.  

So what happens now?

The Government is not ready to accept Ms. Begum’s return and is likely to appeal to Supreme Court. The proceedings referred to a Government document on Foreign Terrorist Travellers. Of the 900 people who had travelled to Syria and Iraq to take part in the conflict, it said, about 40% had returned to the UK. The majority of these were assessed as posing no security risk or a low one.

The Government’s open assessment of the risk Ms Begum poses is sparse. It records the fact that she joined ISIL and relies on comments made to the media in February 2019.

Ms. Begum spoke then about seeing a severed head in a bin. “It didn’t faze me at all. It was from a captured fighter seized on the battlefield, an enemy of Islam”. Her lack of apparent remorse aroused strong public feeling and fears that she posed an ongoing risk. The Secretary of State’s position is a reflection of that. But on her behalf it is argued that statements made to the media should not be taken at face value and that she may have been brainwashed. An appeal will provide an opportunity to hear her account and judge on the basis of all the evidence whether the decision to deprive her of citizenship is correct. 

Marina Wheeler QC is a barrister at 1 Crown Office Row.

Angus McCullough QC, also of 1 Crown Office Row, represents Ms. Begum’s interests as Special Advocate in this case. He was not involved in the writing of this post.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: