No Shamima Begum Thread?

[AuroraSaab]

The law blog I linked to above suggests she had it by default until age 21, after which you have to apply for a certificate.

 

[winjim]

No she did not. She had the right to apply at the age of 21. There is a massive difference.

I don't follow you.

These were my thoughts a few months ago, having (skim) read the judgement at that time.

I just skimmed the judgement to look at the issue of statelessness, as that's what I was discussing upthread. To clarify, she had Bangladeshi citizenship by descent up to her 21st birthday. So at the time the original order was made removing her UK citizenship she was not technically made stateless. However her argument is that she was made de facto stateless as she couldn't realistically exercise her Bangladeshi citizenship and it has in any case now expired.

Interesting wording of the legislation with its emphasis on the satisfaction of the Home Secretary and I can see how it could be argued either way. Did the order make her stateless, did the expiration of her Bangladeshi citizenship make her stateless, was it both, and does the legislation apply only in the present, or to future consequences if those consequences are predictable or perhaps even inevitable? We could discuss these points but in terms of the appeal it seems that the Home Secretary did take statelessness into account at the time which is all he needed to do.

Note that they wouldn't be able to make the same decision now. Funny that they could only remove her citizenship because she was a minor. Couldn't do it now she's an adult.

Legislation​

3. Section 40 of the BNA 1981 (“s 40”) provides, so far as relevant, as follows:​

“(2) The Secretary of State may by order deprive a person of a​

citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that​

deprivation is conducive to the public good.​

…​

(4) The Secretary of State may not make an order under (2) if he​

is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.​

It seems to me that the current request to appeal has been refused because she's not bringing up relevant points of law. The example given in the article is that they didn't discuss removal of citizenship with her before they did it. There's no legal requirement to do that, you're not exactly going to invite a dangerous terrorist round for a cup of tea and a chat, are you? Citizenship is revoked ostensibly on the grounds of national security.

 

[BoldonLad]

I don't follow you.

These were my thoughts a few months ago, having (skim) read the judgement at that time.



It seems to me that the current request to appeal has been refused because she's not bringing up relevant points of law. The example given in the article is that they didn't discuss removal of citizenship with her before they did it. There's no legal requirement to do that, you're not exactly going to invite a dangerous terrorist round for a cup of tea and a chat, are you? Citizenship is revoked ostensibly on the grounds of national security.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of her claims/appeal, the timing could hardly have been less fortunate. A situation not of her making of course, but, not helpful to her case.

 

[spen666]

The law blog I linked to above suggests she had it by default until age 21, after which you have to apply for a certificate.

Seemingly the Judges in the High Court and those in the Court of Appeal who know and have studied law for many years took a different view to you on this. and the Supreme Court said the lower courts decision did not raise an arguable point of law

 

[Bromptonaut]

Seemingly the Judges in the High Court and those in the Court of Appeal who know and have studied law for many years took a different view to you on this. and the Supreme Court said the lower courts decision did not raise an arguable point of law

I think it was SIAC who decided based on expert evidence of the laws and customs of Bangladesh in this regard.

Basically the Home Office expert wiped the floor with hers.

 

[albion]

I don't follow you.

These were my thoughts a few months ago, having (skim) read the judgement at that time.



It seems to me that the current request to appeal has been refused because she's not bringing up relevant points of law. The example given in the article is that they didn't discuss removal of citizenship with her before they did it. There's no legal requirement to do that, you're not exactly going to invite a dangerous terrorist round for a cup of tea and a chat, are you? Citizenship is revoked ostensibly on the grounds of national security.

She had zero right to enter Bangladesh, now not even owning any passport.

Seemingly the Judges in the High Court and those in the Court of Appeal who know and have studied law for many years took a different view to you on this. and the Supreme Court said the lower courts decision did not raise an arguable point of law

She had never been to Bangladesh. And without a passport she had zero right to enter for temporary citizenship.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Seemingly the Judges in the High Court and those in the Court of Appeal who know and have studied law for many years took a different view to you on this. and the Supreme Court said the lower courts decision did not raise an arguable point of law

The discussion was whether she has citizenship of Bangladesh or not and my link - to a blog by a lawyer iirc - suggested it could be interpreted that she did. Legally it looks like we don't have to have her back; I've said previously I think we should have her back because essentially she is our problem.

I've also said before that there might be particular reasons why the government was playing hard ball in Begum's case, eg suspected of atrocities but with not enough proof to charge in the UK.

 

[spen666]

.....


She had never been to Bangladesh. And without a passport she had zero right to enter for temporary citizenship.

Not sure that has any relevance at all.

The fact is the courts have agreed with the government that she was not left stateless at the time the decision was made and therefore it was a valid decision

It is pointless without new and compelling evidence trying to argue before the British courts this same point.

 

[spen666]

....

I've also said before that there might be particular reasons why the government was playing hard ball in Begum's case, eg suspected of atrocities but with not enough proof to charge in the UK.

Interesting comment.
I am sure you are right in the first part of your post ie the government had a reason for playing hardball with her. I have not seen any suggestion to back up the latter point, but that does not mean it is not true. Indeed, thinking about it now, there clearly is a reason for the government to be so resolute about her.

I had for some reason assumed that the government were playing hardball because she was so high profile and to send out a warning to others, but again it was my assumption and without evidence to back it up.

 

[matticus]

.

Sir,
Will you join with me in requesting a change to the thread title? As clearly there IS a Shamima Begum thread.

Yours Truly, etc etc ...

 

[BoldonLad]

She had zero right to enter Bangladesh, now not even owning any passport.


She had never been to Bangladesh. And without a passport she had zero right to enter for temporary citizenship.

Why does having no documentation bar her from entry?

 

[winjim]

She had zero right to enter Bangladesh, now not even owning any passport.


She had never been to Bangladesh. And without a passport she had zero right to enter for temporary citizenship.

I think she had the right to enter Bangladesh although not the means? Anyway, I've argued before that she was made de facto stateless although the revocation of her citizenship appears to have met the legal threshold of the Home Secretary being satisfied etc etc.

But again, that doesn't appear to be the basis of the current appeal attempt.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I had for some reason assumed that the government were playing hardball because she was so high profile and to send out a warning to others, but again it was my assumption and without evidence to back it up.

We did the same to Jack Letts, in effect binning him off to his Canadian citizenship to deal with. He's still in Syrian detention as far as I know. It could just be a deterrent/don't want to set a precedent thing. She doesn't cut a particularly sympathetic figure but it's a bit odd (to me anyway) that there's been no quarter given whatsoever, not even the option of facing charges in the UK.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Interesting comment.
I am sure you are right in the first part of your post ie the government had a reason for playing hardball with her. I have not seen any suggestion to back up the latter point, but that does not mean it is not true. Indeed, thinking about it now, there clearly is a reason for the government to be so resolute about her.

I had for some reason assumed that the government were playing hardball because she was so high profile and to send out a warning to others, but again it was my assumption and without evidence to back it up.

I saw a documentary about her where it was said - by people who CLAIMED to have known her during the ISIS reign in that area - that she did bad stuff (not terrible but just bad) but the witnesses could not testify due to being in hiding - or mostly due to being dead

This was seriously dodgy testimony as the source was not trustworthy and had its own problem to deal with so was potentially trying to palm off some of their own stuff on other people
but it does show the problem with saying she should be brought back and tried
who can you bring forward to prove she did "bad stuff"??

although I still think she is our problem and we should deal with it (just don;t ask me how!)

after all - the resources of the camps are limited

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think I read that she made explosive vests for suicide bombers. I can see why the government wouldn't want to deal with having to put her on trial and the logistics of trying to get a conviction. Once she's back in the country it would be hard to remove her.