ISIS bride Shamima Begum’s new hope of UK return | Politics | News

Shamima Begum’s bid to return to Britain has been revived after European judges objected to Britain’s handling of the jihadist bride’s case.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has officially notified the Home Office of the reasons for its decision to strip the ISIS fanatic of his British citizenship.

Ms Begum’s lawyers described the move as an “unprecedented opportunity” as it paved the way for a new conflict between Britain and Strasbourg.

ECHR judges asked the Government whether it had violated human rights and anti-trafficking laws, which was Ms Begum’s main legal argument.

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick told the Daily Express: “Under no circumstances should Shamima Begum ever set foot in the UK again. She chose to get into bed with ISIS terrorists and now has to face the consequences.”

“We don’t need a foreign court in Strasbourg to tell us who can and cannot come to this country. This is another striking example of why we need to leave the ECHR and take back control of our borders.”

Former Security Secretary Sir Ben Wallace, who was part of the Home Office deprivation of citizenship case, told the Daily Express: “He went of his own free will to support a cause that does not believe in any Western court.

“He was not a victim. He knowingly and freely joined ISIS and helped them continue their bloody campaign.

“He deserved to lose his citizenship.

“It didn’t escape anyone that he went through a court system that he and other terrorists would fundamentally want to destroy.

“He wanted to go there. He can stay there.”

Official “communication” between the ECHR and the Home Office will reignite fears that Begum may eventually be allowed back to the UK.

This suggests that Strasbourg believes Ms Begum’s human rights may have been violated. Many cases that come to court are dismissed before reaching this stage.

Begum was born and raised in Bethnal Green, east London, and traveled to Syria at the age of 15 to join ISIS in 2015 with two other school friends.

She later became the child bride of Yago Riedijk, a Dutch convert to Islam, and three of his children died with him in infancy.

In 2019, then home secretary Sajid Javid stripped him of his British citizenship on the grounds that he could apply for citizenship in Bangladesh and would not become stateless; this decision was later upheld by the UK Supreme Court.

Begum, now 26, still lives in Al Roj camp, which is home to thousands of former jihadists, after losing all appeals in the UK.

Birnberg Peirce Lawyers, who represented the ISIS bride, described the ECHR’s intervention as an “unprecedented opportunity”.

The Home Office has been told to answer four questions about Begum’s citizenship procedures within a few months.

One asks the question: “Have the applicant’s rights under Article 4 of the Convention been violated by the decision to deprive him of his nationality?”

The ECHR implied that they were concerned about the Ministry of Internal Affairs using deprivation of citizenship powers as a “punishment”.

They pointed to a ruling in 2021 in which Strasbourg ruled that the United Kingdom had failed to protect two Vietnamese children on trial for drug crimes, despite evidence that they were victims of trafficking.

It asks the question: “Was deprivation of citizenship akin to criminal prosecution? Was it a “punishment” within the meaning of Article 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings?”

Another of the questions asks the Home Office: “In terms of the Article 4 complaints made in the application, was the applicant within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention at all relevant times?”

And the authorities were asked: “Does the decision of the Secretary of State responsible for the Home Office to deprive the applicant of citizenship violate his rights under Article 4 of the Convention?

“Did the Secretary of State have a positive obligation under Article 4 of the Convention to consider whether the applicant was a victim of trafficking and whether any duties or obligations arose on him before deciding to deprive him of his nationality?”

Former Immigration Secretary Kevin Foster, who was at the Home Office during the legal battles, told the Daily Express: “Once again the ECHR is meddling in Britain’s affairs to defend those who have nothing to do with the rights of others while supporting extremists.

“Shamima Begum’s case was comprehensively evaluated by the British courts and the decision was approved.

“Perhaps if the ECHR had been as concerned with the rights of girls affected by the grooming gang scandal as with its terrorist supporters, it could have regained some of the respect it had lost from the majority of the UK public.”

Lawyer Gareth Peirce, representing Begum, said: “Strasbourg’s communication presents an unprecedented opportunity for both the UK and Ms Begum to grapple with the important issues raised in her case that have so far been overlooked, ignored or violated by previous UK administrations.

“It is impossible to dispute that a 15-year-old British boy was tricked, encouraged and deceived into leaving his home and traveling to ISIS-controlled territory for the purpose of sexual exploitation in 2014-2015, with the known purpose of being given as a child to an ISIS fighter to raise children for the Islamic State.

“It is equally impossible not to accept the catalog of failures to protect a child who was known weeks in advance to be at high risk when a close friend disappeared in the same way and via the same route to Syria.

“Police did not warn families, informed the school that the perception of risk was exaggerated, implemented no safety measures, and delayed contact with ports and known travel routes to trigger alarms and avoid possible danger. [them] Reaching the known goal.”

A Home Office spokesman said: “The Government will always protect the UK and its citizens.

“This is why Shamima Begum, who poses a national security threat, had her British citizenship revoked and cannot return to the UK.

“We will strongly defend any decision taken to protect our national security.”