Shamima Begum has lost an appeal against the decision to remove her British citizenship. She travelled to Syria to join the Islamic State eight years ago at the age of 15 and remains there in a refugee camp.
Wednesday 22 February 2023 13:06, UK
That's all our live coverage on Shamima Begum's legal case for today.
Thank you for following along.
You can scroll through the posts below to see all the latest updates on this story, or you can read more about it here...
By Duncan Gardham, security journalist
Today's judgment showed Begum had won the argument but lost the legal battle, her lawyers said.
They called the ruling a "lost opportunity" to reverse a "profound mistake and a continuing injustice," pledging to urgently pursue "every possible avenue to challenge this decision".
Calling the findings "troubling", they added: "Ms Begum remains in unlawful, arbitrary and indefinite detention without trial in a Syrian camp."
Gareth Peirce said the implications of the judgment were that "no British child who is being trafficked outside the UK will be protected by the British state if the home secretary invokes national security."
"Reading, the factual underpinning of what the commission considers to being made out, you will feel that there will be no way that she could not have succeeded in her appeal," Ms Peirce added.
"But you will equally see the repeated threads through the judgment, how the commission invokes the Supreme Court view that its role was limited, and it cannot consider the merits of the case - it's limited to the most narrow grounds of administrative review.
"In consequence, you have a judgment in which the court is effectively saying, as things stand now, we are stuck in a way that we do not think reflects the findings we're making."
Her colleague, lawyer Daniel Furner said the judgment failed to endorse the decision taken by Sajid Javid.
"This commission of which saw exactly the same material that Sajid Javid saw... described the case as finely balanced and said that reasonable people might strongly and profoundly disagree with the way in which the present case is being defended," he said.
Speaking after today's ruling, Begum's lawyers revealed they are going to challenge the decision.
While one of her lawyers, Daniel Furner, did not announce the exact details of how this will be done, his colleague, Gareth Pierce, said there were "no limits".
You can watch their comments below...
The government made the "right calls" by revoking Shamima Begum's citizenship in 2019, a Conservative MP has said.
Speaking to Sky News ahead of PMQs, Gary Sambrook said today's decision shows the government was doing what was "necessary to protect the UK".
"The court has proven the government right," he added, before taking a snipe at the Labour leader.
Mr Sambrook said the "concerning" issue now is that Sir Keir Starmer is on the record as saying what the government did was wrong.
"That throws into question his judgement if he's ever in a position where he has to make the calls and the security of this country," he added.
Today's ruling is a "very disappointing decision", Amnesty International has said.
Responding to the judgment on Shamima Begum's citizenship appeal, the organisation's refugee and migrant rights director said the UK should be helping to bring her home.
"The home secretary shouldn't be in the business of exiling British citizens by stripping them of their citizenship," Steve Valdez-Symonds said.
"The power to banish a citizen like this simply shouldn't exist in the modern world, not least when we're talking about a person who was seriously exploited as a child."
He added that Begum was "lured to Syria as an impressionable 15-year-old" by IS, describing her as a victim of grooming and trafficking.
"Along with thousands of others, including large numbers of women and children, this young British woman is now trapped in a dangerous refugee camp in a war-torn country and left largely at the mercy of gangs and armed groups," Mr Valdez-Symonds added.
"Just as other nations have done, the UK should be helping any of its citizens stranded in Syria - including by assisting in their safe return to the UK, whether or not that means facing possible criminal investigation or prosecution."
Shamima Begum's legal fight is "nowhere near over", one of her lawyers says.
Speaking after the Special Immigration Appeals Commission's ruling, Daniel Furner says the 23-year-old's legal team are going to challenge the decision.
"We're not going to go into details about exactly what that means at this stage," he adds.
His colleague, Gareth Pierce, adds that "there's no limit to the challenges" that can be undertaken.
Begum's team also calls on the home secretary to use "courage and some leadership" to look at the IS bride's case in "the light of the clear and compelling factual findings" made by the court.
Ms Pierce criticises today's decision, which has left "no protection for a British child trafficked out of the UK".
"Regrettably, this is a lost opportunity to put into reverse a profound mistake and a continuing injustice," she says.
"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."
Shamima Begum has lost her appeal to return to the UK.
She is living in a refugee camp in northern Syria, and the decision essentially leaves her stateless.
Sky News correspondent Alistair Bunkall says the ruling is quite surprising.
"The security that I spoke to ahead of the ruling did feel that probably she would have her British nationality restored because the feeling was that perhaps it was legally untenable to keep it revoked.
"So I think in that respect it is a surprise.
"When I interviewed her, I did ask her about this eventuality and what would happen if she didn't have her passport returned to her and her nationality given back, and she said there is no plan B.
"The British government argument would be that the plan for her is to pursue the route through Bangladesh.
"Her father has some Bangladesh heritage, and that is why the British government argued that they are in a position to revoke her British nationality.
"Shamima Begum's counterargument is that she's never been to Bangladesh all she has no links with Bangladesh and if she went back there then she could possibly face the death penalty."
The Home Office has said it is "pleased" the court has ruled against Shamima Begum.
In a statement, a spokeswoman said: "We are pleased that the court has found in favour of the government's position in this case."
She added that the government's priority remains maintaining the "safety and security" of the UK.
"We will robustly defend any decision made in doing so," she said.
Sajid Javid, who was home secretary when Begum was first stripped of her British citizenship, said he welcomed the ruling, adding that it "upheld" his initial decision.
"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," he said.
As he read out the decision of the tribunal, Mr Justice Jay said "reasonable people will differ" over the circumstances of Shamima Begum's case.
He explained the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has "fully recognised" the conclusion that the 23-year-old travelled voluntarily to Syria as a teenager is "as stark as it is unsympathetic".
He added that there is "some merit" in the argument that the Home Office sees the issue surrounding the IS bride's citizenship as a "black and white case" , where "many would say there are shades of grey".
"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," he continued.
Mr Justice Jay also said people will have different views on the threat Begum posed to national security and how that should be balanced against other considerations.
"However, under our constitutional settlement these sensitive issues are for the secretary of state to evaluate and not for the commission," he concluded.
The commission deciding Shamima Begum's case concluded there was "credible suspicion" that she had been trafficked to Syria for "sexual exploitation" but ruled this was not enough for her to win the appeal.
The Special Immigration Appeals Commission also found there were "arguable breaches of duty" by state bodies in allowing her to travel to the country.
But Mr Justice Jay said in a summary of the decision that this suspicion was "insufficient" for her to win on her arguments that the deprivation of her UK citizenship did not respect her human rights.
It added that given she was now in Syria, the home secretary was not compelled to facilitate her return or 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."
