SHAMIMA BEGUM HAS lost a legal challenge over the decision to deprive her of her British citizenship.

Begum was 15 when she travelled from Bethnal Green, east London, through Turkey and into territory controlled by the Islamic State (IS).

Her British citizenship was revoked shortly after she was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February 2019.

Begum, now 23, brought a challenge against the Home Office over this decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), a specialist tribunal which hears challenges to decisions to remove someone’s British citizenship on national security grounds.

Following a five-day hearing in November, the tribunal dismissed her challenge on Wednesday.

At the hearing last year, Begum’s barristers Samantha Knights KC and Dan Squires KC said she was “recruited, transported, transferred, harboured and received in Syria for the purposes of ‘sexual exploitation’ and ‘marriage’ to an adult male”.

They also argued that the Home Office unlawfully failed to consider that she travelled to Syria and remained there “as a victim of child trafficking”.

However, James Eadie KC, for the department, said the security services “continue to assess that Ms Begum poses a risk to national security”.

He later said then-home secretary Sajid Javid took into account Begum’s age, how she travelled to Syria – including likely online radicalisation – and her activity in the country, when deciding to remove her British citizenship.

Giving the decision of the tribunal, Justice Jay said that “reasonable people will differ” over the circumstances of Begum’s case.

He said: “The commission has fully recognised the considerable force in the submissions advanced on behalf of Ms Begum that the Secretary of State’s conclusion, on expert advice, that Ms Begum travelled voluntarily to Syria is as stark as it is unsympathetic.

“Further, there is some merit in the argument that those advising the Secretary of State see this as a black and white issue, when many would say that there are shades of grey.”

He continued: “If asked to evaluate all the circumstances of Ms Begum’s case, reasonable people with knowledge of all the relevant evidence will differ, in particular in relation to the issue of the extent to which her travel to Syria was voluntary and the weight to be given to that factor in the context of all others.

“Likewise, reasonable people will differ as to the threat she posed in February 2019 to the national security of the United Kingdom, and as to how that threat should be balanced against all countervailing considerations.

“However, under our constitutional settlement these sensitive issues are for the Secretary of State to evaluate and not for the commission.”

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission concluded there was a “credible suspicion” that Begum was trafficked to Syria for “sexual exploitation” and that there were “arguable breaches of duty” by state bodies in allowing her to travel to the country.

But Justice Jay said in a summary of the commission’s decision that the existence of this suspicion was “insufficient” for her to succeed on her arguments that the deprivation of her British citizenship failed to respect her human rights.

He added that given Begum was now in Syria, the Home Secretary was not compelled to facilitate her return nor stopped from using “deprivation powers”.

The judge said: “The commission concluded that there was a credible suspicion that Ms Begum had been trafficked to Syria within the meaning of relevant international legal instruments.

“Essentially, and from the perspective of those responsible for the trafficking, the motive for bringing her to Syria was sexual exploitation to which, as a child, she could not give a valid consent.

“The commission also concluded that there were arguable breaches of duty on the part of various state bodies in permitting Ms Begum to leave the country as she did and eventually cross the border from Turkey into Syria.”

He added: “In outline, given that Ms Begum is now in Syria, the state’s corollary investigative duty did not compel the Secretary of State to facilitate her return to the United Kingdom, nor did it prevent him from exercising his deprivation powers.”

The judge said: “In short, the commission decided that a finding that Ms Begum has been trafficked does not operate as a form of limitation on the Secretary of State’s wide powers.”

Reacting to the ruling, a Home Office spokeswoman said: “We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the Government’s position in this case.

“The Government’s priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and we will robustly defend any decision made in doing so.”

However, Begum’s lawyers said the ruling has left “no protection for a British child trafficked out of the UK”.

In a statement, Gareth Pierce and Daniel Furner, from Birnberg Pierce Solicitors, said: “We, the lawyers entrusted with the representation of Ms Begum in circumstances of extreme difficulty, register our profound disagreement with the decision taken by the home secretary in 2019 and the diminution by the Supreme Court of the ability of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to consider her legal challenges.

“The outcome is that there is now no protection for a British child trafficked out of the UK if the home secretary invokes national security,” they said.

“Regrettably, this is a lost opportunity to put into reverse a profound mistake and a continuing injustice.

“Ms Begum remains in unlawful, arbitrary and indefinite detention without trial in a Syrian camp. Every possible avenue to challenge this decision will be urgently pursued.

“In our view, that demands the Secretary of State must carefully review the original decision in light of the commission’s troubling findings.” 

Sajid Javid, who was home secretary when Begum was first stripped of her British citizenship, said: “I welcome today’s court ruling, which has again upheld my decision to remove an individual’s citizenship on national security grounds.”

“This is a complex case but home secretaries should have the power to prevent anyone entering our country who is assessed to pose a threat to it.”