- European Court questions UK on Begum case.
- Challenges citizenship stripping as unlawful act.
- Probes "sham" revocation in ISIS case.
European lawyers have questioned whether Begum's treatment complies with the UK's obligations to trafficking victims.
Begum's attorneys have benefited from the intervention, which has also fueled Conservative and Reform demands to withdraw from the European human rights convention and claims of foreign judges intervening.
Begum left her home in east London in 2015 as a fifteen-year-old schoolgirl, traveling with two friends to live in an area controlled by the Islamic State (IS). She was "married off" to an IS fighter and had three children, all of whom passed away at a young age.
In 2019, Sajid Javid, the home clerk at the time, withdrew her citizenship for reasons of public security. The present administration supported this decision, which was validated by the court of prayers last time.
Begum's attorneys and activists contend that she was a victim of child trafficking. Begum, 26, is still living in a camp for Syrian deportees without a nation.
Begum is contesting Javid's ruling under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which forbids slavery and forced labor, according to a document released by the European court this month.
After she was refused the opportunity to contest the revocation of her British citizenship at the UK Supreme Court, the case was filed in December 2024.
Among four questions posed by judges in Strasbourg to the Home Office, they asked:
“Did the secretary of state have a positive obligation, by virtue of Article 4 of the convention, to consider whether the applicant had been a victim of trafficking and whether any duties or obligations to her flowed from that fact, before deciding to deprive her of her citizenship?”
Begum's attorney, Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, stated that the court's statement "presents an unprecedented opportunity" for Begum and the UK to "grapple with the significant considerations raised in her case and ignored, sidestepped or violated up to now by previous UK administrations."
One of the lawyers, Gareth Peirce, said:
“It is impossible to dispute that a 15-year-old British child was in 2014-15 lured, encouraged and deceived for the purposes of sexual exploitation to leave home and travel to [IS-controlled] territory for the known purpose of being given, as a child, to an [IS] fighter to propagate children for the Islamic State.”
She added:
“It is equally impossible not to acknowledge the catalogue of failures to protect a child known for weeks beforehand to be at high risk when a close friend had disappeared to Syria in an identical way and via an identical route.
It has already been long conceded that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, who took the precipitous decision in 2019 very publicly to deprive Ms Begum of citizenship, had failed entirely to consider the issues of grooming and trafficking of a school child in London and of the state’s consequent duties.”
According to Pierce, the difficulty arises because the present administration has made protecting victims of trafficking and grooming a national priority.
Any decision taken to safeguard national security will be vigorously contested, according to a Home Office official. They added:
“The government will always protect the UK and its citizens. That is why Shamima Begum – who posed a national security threat – had her British citizenship revoked and is unable to return to the UK.”
Begum had "no place" in the UK, according to Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, since she supported violent extremists.
"It is deeply concerning that the European Court of Human Rights is now looking at using the ECHR to make the UK take her back,"
he wrote in a post on X.
How might this impact international law on statelessness protections?
An ECHR ruling in Shamima Begum's favor could strengthen transnational morals against citizenship stripping that results in statelessness, obliging countries to prioritize due process and proportionality under the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions.
By checking UK's cancellation without Begum's input or return rights, the court might affirm that public security claims can not stamp protections against arbitrary privation( UDHR Article 15, ICCPR Article 24), limiting unilateral conduct by powers like the US, Australia, or Canada in terrorism cases.
It would bolster UNHCR calls for statelessness determination procedures and safeguards, potentially inspiring reforms in Europe( e.g., via Council of Europe) and reducing discriminative practices, though enforcement gaps persist due to limited convention ratifications.