This FAQ explains the case of Shamima Begum, which was decided by the UK Supreme Court on 26 February 2021. It is intended to set out what the case is about, why it matters and how children’s rights are relevant. It also explains the situation of other people who travelled to Syria while they were children and other British children currently detained in camps in the country.

What is the background to this case?

Shamima Begum was born in the United Kingdom and is British by birth. In 2015, while she was aged 15, she left the United Kingdom with two friends and travelled to Syria where she married an ISIL fighter and lived in Raqqa, the capital of ISIL’s self-declared caliphate. 

In February 2019, journalists identified her in a camp in Northern Syria. At this time, Ms. Begum was pregnant with her third child. Her two other children had both died before reaching the camp. Then aged 19, she sought to return to the United Kingdom with her child. Both she and her child were British citizens. 

The UK Home Secretary (then Sajid Javid) used his powers to deprive Ms. Begum of her citizenship, preventing her return with her child. Her third child subsequently died in al-Hol camp, reportedly of pneumonia as a result of the living conditions and the lack of effective medical treatment.

How did the case end up at the Supreme Court?

When the Home Secretary uses his power to deprive British citizens of their citizenship, which is legal in limited circumstances, the person affected has a right of appeal under the British Nationality Act 1981. Ms. Begum initially sought to challenge this decision before the Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC), as she was legally entitled to. The SIAC ruled against Ms. Begum, finding that the Home Secretary was allowed to remove her citizenship.

In July 2020, Ms. Begum appealed to the Court of Appeal, which found that she could not have a fair and effective appeal against the decision to remove her citizenship if she was detained in a camp in Syria as she was not able to instruct her lawyers or engage in any of the hearings. The Court ordered that Ms. Begum must be allowed to return to the United Kingdom to exercise her right to appeal against the decision to remove her nationality.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal against this decision on 23 to 24 November 2020, and delivered its judgment on 26 February 2021.

What was the Supreme Court case about?

There are three questions that the Supreme Court considered:

1. Should Ms. Begum be allowed to enter the UK so that she can appeal against the decision to deprive her of her British citizenship?

2. Did the Special Immigration Appeals Commission apply the right standards in reviewing Ms. Begum’s earlier appeal?

3. If Ms. Begum is refused leave to enter the UK, should her appeal against depriving her of her citizenship be successful?

What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Supreme Court decided that Ms. Begum does not have the right to return to the UK so that she can appeal against the decision to deprive her of her British citizenship.

Although it was not possible for Ms. Begum to have a fair and effective appeal while she was detained in a Syrian displacement camp and she was not allowed to return to the UK to pursue the appeal, the Supreme Court found that there was no requirement that her appeal against depriving her of her citizenship should succeed.

The Court found that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission had applied the right standards in reviewing Ms. Begum’s earlier appeal.

The Supreme Court did not decide that the removal of Shamima Begum’s nationality was legal. This was beyond the scope of this case.

You can read our summary of the decision here.

What does this mean in practice?

Shamima Begum will not be allowed to return to the UK to challenge the removal of her nationality. The appeal against this decision will wait until she is able to take part remotely, if this is ever possible. So there is a possibility that the decision to strip Shamima Begum of her nationality was unlawful, but because she doesn’t have access to a court, she cannot make that case.

Why does this case matter?

Depriving someone of their citizenship is a decision that changes someone’s life forever. This is why there must be a right to a fair and effective appeal so that anyone affected by this decision is able to ensure that it was made legally. 

The principle that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing must apply to everyone, but is particularly the case where the decision affects someone who was groomed and recruited by an armed group while she was a child. Shamima Begum was 15 when she was groomed by a terrorist organisation. The British government has an obligation to protect children from being targeted and recruited by these groups and should have stopped her leaving the country in the first place. That this took place was a failure of the British state to protect her and leaving her in Syria indefinitely makes this situation worse.

It also appears that the Home Office has not followed its own procedures in this case. In its 2018 Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the Home Office set out an example of how to respond to British nationals with children who are seeking to return from Syria (p. 50), a situation which bears a close resemblance to the case of Shamima Begum. The process it sets out recommends a controlled return to the UK including an investigation into whether the person should be prosecuted for any criminal activity committed while in Syria. This procedure was not followed in Ms. Begum’s case.

The power to remove nationality has created a discriminatory punishment only available for some. It is unlawful to remove someone’s nationality if that would leave them stateless (without a nationality). This means that British citizenship could never be removed from someone of exclusively British heritage. The measure could only be imposed on Shamima Begum because her parents are of Bangladeshi descent and so she could be eligible to apply for Bangladeshi nationality. She herself has never held a Bangladeshi passport.

Are there other similar cases?

This case also matters because Shamima Begum is not the only British citizen currently detained in a Syrian camp. While there are very few people living in these camps who were recruited as children but are now adults, an estimated 60 British children remain in them. Some of these children were taken to Syria by their parents and others have been born in the country. Half of these children are under five years old and many have never lived in ISIL-controlled territory and have had no link to the terrorist group.

Hundreds of children have died in camps in Syria, primarily as a result of inadequate medical and humanitarian assistance and this situation is getting worse. Causes of death include heart failure, internal bleeding and severe malnutrition that could have been treated at field hospitals, were they operational.

How should the United Kingdom respond to British children currently in camps in Syria?

The situation for children living in these camps is dire, requiring an urgent response. International human rights law must form the basis of this response and States must accept responsibility for children who are their citizens. 

1. The recruitment of children by all armed groups, including terrorist groups, must be criminalised to ensure accountability for this exploitation of children;

2. Children should not be criminalised purely for their association or membership of a terrorist group;

3. States must never deprive a child of their nationality, regardless of whether they have been recruited by a terrorist group;

4. States must accept responsibility for children who are their citizens, ensuring that they are able to return to their country;

5. Ensure that children are able to access health, education and other services while awaiting return from displacement camps;

6. States must ensure that children are not separated from their parents unless it is in the child’s best interests. To ensure no separation, States must consider repatriating entire families;

7. Children should never be detained because of their immigration status or subjected to preventive or administrative detention for counter-terrorism purposes;

8. Children recruited by terrorist groups should be recognised as victims of grave human rights abuses and States should facilitate their recovery and rehabilitation;

9. States should develop specialised rehabilitation and reintegration services for child returnees, including health, education, vocational and social support that takes account of an individual child’s gender, age and cultural background; and

10. In exceptional situations when people are prosecuted for criminal offences committed as children while they were part of a terrorist group, States must guarantee the full protections of a specialised child justice system and specialised diversion and restorative justice practices.

For more information, read our joint position paper on behalf of children’s organisations working on this issue.

Sign up to our newsletter to stay updated and follow us on Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram.