Shamima Begum loses appeal over British citizenship | BBC News

Now let's start with the

news

that has leaked in the last few minutes that Shamima Beum lost her latest

appeal

for the removal of her British

citizenship

. Miss Beum traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State group in 2015, when she was 15, her

citizenship

was revoked. For national security reasons, shortly after being found in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019, she argued that the decision was illegal because she was a victim of trafficking. It means that she remains in IA with no possibility of returning to the UK. Well, here it is. Dame Sukar, the Chief Justice of England and Wales, who delivered the ruling at the court of

appeal

.

In conclusion, for these reasons, we unanimously dismiss the appeal. One could argue that the decision in Miss Bam's case was harsh. It could also be argued that Miss Beum is the author of her own misfortune but it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view. Our only task is to evaluate whether the deprivation decision was illegal. We have concluded that it was not. It was and the appeal is dismissed well, let's now talk to mayor foer, who is executive director of repeat pardon, a legal action, a non-governmental organization that represents Ms. bam, what is your reaction to this?

Well, it's obviously a disappointing decision, but in some respects it's not surprising that what we've heard here is the court again showing absolute deference. to the government and essentially saying that this is a political decision, we can't cross that line and say that they did something wrong here in terms of procedure, but they also recognized that Miss Begum had credible suspicions that she was a victim of trafficking and that many people could consider it that this decision disturbs the decision to deprive it in the first place, so what we are left with here is a political problem, a problem that the government could have solved, they did, they could solve it and the courts have said it is not for us, TRUE?

Now it will be appealed but that is the current state, what they have ruled that in terms of National Security and in terms of public good is a priority when making their decisions and not any of the five grounds of appeal that were filed, they did say that From a procedural standpoint the government had not made errors to the point of making the way it made the decision illegal, but it also recognized that there are many important factors in this case that could lead many of us to think that the decision to Deprive in first place was unfair.

Our position is that if we believe that Shamima Beam has committed serious crimes and is a threat to national security, the proper way to prosecute serious crimes is through the British courts and many experts, many security experts, have said yes. perfectly capable of managing threats in Britain. I know it just happened, but have you talked to her? Has she told you what happened? No and we are not Miss Begum's lawyers. We have worked on the case, but we are not. We still haven't told her lawyers what happened. I'm sure she will be informed and I'm sure she will be disappointed by this, but know that it is not the end of the road because I will be there. assuming it's going to be an appeal, so yeah, so you're assuming this is going to the Supreme Court, and on what grounds would you be interested in taking it to the Supreme Court?

Well, again, it would be up to her legal team to determine the motives, but I do. I hope they appeal it because this is a hugely important issue and, both in the present case and more generally, stripping of citizenship fell out of use after the Nazis used it. Britain is the only G20 country to use inv citizenship stripping. Bol is a totally irresponsible power and, in fact, today's court decision confirming the legality of the process the government has gone through simply exemplifies the problem that we have a Minister of the Interior who can make a decision based on what he believes which is propitious. for the public good, we don't really know what that decision entails, so you read the court ruling, we haven't heard why they say she's a threat, we haven't, well, it's secret, isn't it the evidence?

I know it is understandable that some evidence needs to be kept secret, this was MI5 and MI6 evidence, wasn't it at the previous hearing? But it is understandable that some evidence must be kept secret, not some evidence, but as a matter? as serious as the stripping of citizenship, where two in five British citizens of minority ethnic origin could have their citizenship stripped without notice and without proper process without being able to hear their case openly without being able to see the evidence in his against. I think that's a scary situation and, as I say, Britain is the only country doing this in the G20.

We are second only to Bahrain and Nicaragua in stripping ourselves of citizenship in this way and the secretive nature of this compounds the problems. Well, thank you very much for talking to us. That's Maya. foa pardon director thank you