Begum v The Home Office [2021] UKSC 7 (26 February 2021)
Citation:Begum v The Home Office [2021] UKSC 7 (26 February 2021).
Subjects invoked: 2. 'Citizen'.77. 'Insurance'.
Rule of thumb:Can a first nationality British citizen have citizenship removed from them, even if born & raised exclusively in Britain? Yes, if a first nationality British citizen born & raised in Britain obtains dual nationality from another a country, and the British intelligence services MI5/MI6 obtain clear and strong evidence that the person is participating in terrorism against Britain from their new country, then for reasons of national security British citizenship can be removed.
Background facts:
This case invoked the subjects of ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship naturalisation’.
According to the narrative presented by the Court, the facts of this case by and large were that Shamima Begum was born in the UK and was a British citizen by birth. At age 15 she travelled to Syria on holiday. She fell in love with a Syrian man who was openly a rebel fighter with IDIL/ISIS – they later got married and Begum moved to Syria permanently to live. Begum obtained Syrian citizenship and resided in one of the terrorist camps where the terrorist IDIL/ISIS fighters stay. Whilst Begum was in these camps where they work on plans to carry out acts of terrorism. UK Intelligence services advised the Home Office that Begum’s status and legal rights as a British citizen made her a blatant and extreme threat to national security. After being provided with this intelligence about the clear and blatant risk to national security posed by Begum, Begum had her British citizenship removed by the Secretary of State for the Home Office – it was reasoned that the legal rights and freedoms British citizenship, meant she presented such a significant risk to nationality and she had to have the citizenship removed. As time passed and the ‘honeymoon period’ on Begum’s marriage naturally began to wear off, Begum found living conditions in Syria extremely difficulty and far removed from what she was used to in the UK. Begum could not adjust to these as well as she would have liked and wanted to return to the UK, but was refused entry by the Secretary of State for the Home Office on the grounds that she was no longer a British citizen and therefore no longer had any of the vast array of legal rights British citizens possess. Begum was appealing the original decision to remove her British citizenship rights, and Begum also sought to be allowed to enter the UK so that she could prepare her appeal against citizenship removal properly. The Secretary of State for the Home Office denied citizenship had been removed unfairly or illegally, and refused to let her prepare the case in the UK, and the matter went to Court.
Begum argued that the Home Office had no legal right to remove her British citizenship. Begum argued that she was unable to pursue her appeal about her removal of British citizenship properly and communicate with Counsel effectively from Syria. Begum further argued that in order for her to obtain a fair trial and make her citizenship rights arguments properly she needed to reside in the UK. The Home Office argued that in the circumstances of a dual nationality British citizen actively being in anti-UK terrorist camp from their other nationality country, thereby causing a blatantly increased risk to national security the UK, the UK have the right to remove this person’s British citizenship from them. The Home Office further argued that if it became a point of law that the Home Office could not do this, and dozens, or even hundreds of dual-British citizens started following this precedent, then it would put the lives of the people in the UK at serious risk of devastating fatal terrorist acts, and this was just not remotely acceptable. The Home Office additionally argued that as Begum had her British citizenship removed none of the UK laws that she was using to argue her point applied to her. The Home Office yet further argued that although living conditions in Syria were tough, Syria was respecting Begum’s human rights and Begum’s living conditions were not being violated in living in Syria, so Begum could not rely on this loophole exception to return to the UK.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the arguments of the Home Office. The Court affirmed that being and raised in Britain to obtain first-nationality British citizenship is not an irremovable right. The Court affirmed that Begum’s British citizenship had been removed correctly. It was held that if a British citizen gets citizenship of a foreign country, starts living there and is blatantly involved in the perpetration of acts of terrorism from terrorist camps against the UK citizens from there, then the Home Office are entitled to remove this person’s British citizenship to reduce the effectiveness with which this person can put the lives of innocent UK people at risk in terrorist attacks. The Court stated that this was a national security decision which they could not interfere with. The Court also affirmed that Begum did not have the right to enter the UK to present the appeal either. The Court further held that although the UK were part of a Treaty where if someone was involved in UK legal proceedings, and they were in a country where they were being mistreated, then they would be allowed to enter the UK, but that this Treaty was not actually binding as a source of primary law – the Court affirmed that Begum was not being mistreated where she was in Syria, and she was not having her human rights violated in Syria, so this Treaty did not apply to support her position in any event. The Court also affirmed that Begum had a fair and reasonable to contact counsel from Syria over the internet and make her case effectively from there. So, in short, it was held that on the grounds of national security Begum had her UK citizenship, and all the legal rights and privileges which it brings, removed correctly, and that she was not entitled to re-enter the UK to appeal against this as her human rights were being respected in her new country.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘94. The nature and consequences of the decision in question in the deprivation (of citizenship) appeal do not point towards a different conclusion. It is, of course, true that a deprivation decision may have serious consequences for the person in question: although she cannot be rendered stateless, the loss of her British citizenship may nevertheless have a profound effect upon her life, especially where her alternative nationality is one with which she has little real connection. But the setting aside of the decision may also have serious consequences for the public interest. In such a case, it would be irresponsible for the court to allow the appeal without any regard to the interests of national security which prompted the decision in question, and it is difficult to conceive that the law would require it to do so… 130. That is what the Secretary of State did. He had before him detailed assessments by his officials and by the Security Service, which concluded that there were no substantial grounds to believe that a real risk of mistreatment contrary to articles 2 or 3 would arise as a result of Ms Begum being deprived of her British citizenship while in Syria, and that any potential risks in countries outside Syria were not a foreseeable consequence of the deprivation decision: see paras 22-24 above. Having considered that material, the Secretary of State was not satisfied that depriving Ms Begum of British citizenship would expose her to a real risk of such mistreatment. His conclusion in relation to that issue was open to challenge on the ground of unreasonableness, but SIAC considered the issue on that basis, and rejected the challenge. I can see no defect in its reasoning in relation to that question’, Lord Reed
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.