A top government terrorism adviser is to say that Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the UK, as the number of expert voices opposing her exclusion from Britain grows.
Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, will say in a speech on Monday that Begum, who fled her east London home aged 15 to join Islamic State (IS) in Syria, could still pose a risk even though she is overseas and that “repatriation, if it took place, should not be confused with moral absolution”.
The government decision to revoke Begum’s British citizenship – upheld last week by a special tribunal – has been condemned by a former supreme court justice. Jonathan Sumption, in a letter to the Guardian, described as a “scandal” the government’s action, which he said in effect left her stateless. He wrote: “Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable.”
In 2015, Begum left her home in Bethnal Green with two schoolfriends after being lured by online terrorist propaganda, travelling through Turkey before joining IS in Syria. She married a terrorist fighter and had three children, all of whom died as infants.
In 2019, the government revoked her British citizenship, claiming because she had Bangladeshi heritage she would not be left stateless. Begum is in a camp in Syria and says she regrets her decision and wants to return to the UK, even if to be prosecuted.
Hall in his speech in London will say other western countries are taking back former IS recruits, meaning Britain is out of step with them. Begum was one of an estimated 900 Britons who travelled to join IS, half of whom have since returned. Hall will say a policy of keeping them at “strategic distance” is becoming increasingly untenable.
He will say that if Begum is a terrorist danger then her being oversees still represents a risk, and will add that her gender may be a factor to consider. “The UK’s experience is that women are far less likely to carry out attacks or any other sort of terrorist offending – in the 20 years to September 2022 there were 1,004 men versus 89 women convicted of terrorism.
“Compared with men, women are less likely to have travelled for purpose of fighting; are less likely to have played [a] battlefield role; may well have had less autonomy in being able to leave; and now make up majority of those UK-linked individuals detained.”
Hall will add: “The status quo does not eliminate risk … Plotting in detention may be easier than plotting at home.”
He will say children of those who travelled to join IS needed to be removed from from that environment, and will add: “Managed return, with proper preparation, reception committees, police with risk management plans in place, local authorities primed to undertake safeguarding, wider family members engaged, is better than chaotic return.”
Hall will say people such as Begum returning would also offer something for those outraged by her actions: “Prosecution can also fulfil the objective of accountability. It is only human to want to see these individuals punished for their choices. That desire for just desserts may be partially assuaged by the knowledge that detention will have been harsh, but all this is extra-legal rather than a basis for policy. The noble and rational goal of accountability is different and requires renewed attention.”
The government’s decision is alleged to have followed advice from the security services about the danger Begum poses.
In his Guardian letter, Lord Sumption said: “The home secretary cannot deprive a person of British citizenship if it would render them stateless …
“When the decision was made, in 2019, Ms Begum ... was a citizen of Bangladesh, but only in the most technical sense. She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up … But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country. And Bangladesh has disowned her.
“Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction. Today, it is not even that. She is 23. As a result of the home secretary’s decision, she is stuck in a camp in Syria, with no citizenship anywhere and no prospect of one. Children who make a terrible mistake are surely redeemable. But statelessness is for ever.”
