"In a document published by the ECHR earlier this month, it states that Ms Begum is challenging the decision to revoke her British citizenship under Article 4 of the European Convention of Human Rights - prohibition of slavery and forced labour.

The case was lodged in December 2024 after the UK's Supreme Court denied her the chance to challenge the decision.'

"It is deeply concerning the European Court of Human Rights is now looking at using the ECHR to make the UK take her back."

Shamima Begum: Home secretary to 'robustly defend' citize...

The ECHR questions whether it was considered if Shamima Begum was a victim of grooming and trafficking.

I thought the UK Supreme Court had already ruled on this issue?

The case was lodged in December 2024 after the UK's Supreme Court denied her the chance to challenge the decision.

Ah, but now it is time for judges from other countries (who knows, perhaps with less rigorous judicial backgrounds) to pick over the decision. The human rights lawyer's gravy train has clearly taken on coal and water and built up a new head of steam!

I speak as one who actually thought that she should not have been stripped of her citizenship, but if she had committed crimes (other than being a foolish impressionable teenage girl) then should have faced the courts in the UK. The UK Supreme Court ruled otherwise. I don't think it was a good decision but one must accept it.

Simple enough case to defend.

Provide the ECHR the records of Begum’s criminal convictions.

I don't know enough to agree or disagree with the Supreme Court decision. But the idea that the ECHR thinks they can override it is ludicrous.

If they do rule that way, Brits should give them the one finger wave.

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Simple enough case to defend.

Provide the ECHR the records of Begum’s criminal convictions.

No criminal trial → no criminal due process.
But extensive administrative/judicial review → courts say due process was provided for the citizenship decision.

Whether that amounts to sufficient "due process" overall is a major point of controversy—critics call it punishment without trial; the government and courts call it lawful national security protection.

Point is, as I mentioned the UK Supreme Court made its decision and cannot realistically reverse its previous decisions in Shamima Begum's case (primarily the 2021 ruling on her inability to return to the UK for appeals, and the 2024 refusal of permission to appeal the citizenship revocation itself).

Even an ECHR win wouldn't force the Supreme Court to "reverse"—it might prompt policy changes, compensation, or reputational pressure, but the domestic judgments stand unless Parliament intervenes.

The most recent official figure for legal aid costs in Shamima Begum's case comes from a UK parliamentary written answer in March 2024, stating that £246,097.34 had been paid to her legal providers by the Legal Aid Agency (directly to solicitors/barristers, not to Begum herself).

1 minute ago, mikeymike100 said:

The most recent official figure for legal aid costs in Shamima Begum's case comes from a UK parliamentary written answer in March 2024, stating that £246,097.34 had been paid to her legal providers by the Legal Aid Agency (directly to solicitors/barristers, not to Begum herself).

Multiply that by up to 800 dinghy passengers a day, and a clever, lucrative plan comes into focus.

Both sides funded by the poor British taxpayers.

2 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

No criminal trial → no criminal due process.
But extensive administrative/judicial review → courts say due process was provided for the citizenship decision.

Whether that amounts to sufficient "due process" overall is a major point of controversy—critics call it punishment without trial; the government and courts call it lawful national security protection.

Point is, as I mentioned the UK Supreme Court made its decision and cannot realistically reverse its previous decisions in Shamima Begum's case (primarily the 2021 ruling on her inability to return to the UK for appeals, and the 2024 refusal of permission to appeal the citizenship revocation itself).

Even an ECHR win wouldn't force the Supreme Court to "reverse"—it might prompt policy changes, compensation, or reputational pressure, but the domestic judgments stand unless Parliament intervenes.

The most recent official figure for legal aid costs in Shamima Begum's case comes from a UK parliamentary written answer in March 2024, stating that £246,097.34 had been paid to her legal providers by the Legal Aid Agency (directly to solicitors/barristers, not to Begum herself).

All because a Government decided to overthrow centuries of common law jurisprudence and rule by ministerial dictate.

Those claiming a two tier justice system have solid evidence of it’s existence in the Begum case.

Those fearing the UK Government being captured by a religious group that then replaces common law with theocratic practice ought to consider the consequences of setting a precedence of Government, not open courts of law, deciding guilt and stripping people of their rights and citizenship on the basis of edict.

The Begum case obliterates Clause 39 of Magna Carta, it is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All because a Government decided to overthrow centuries of common law jurisprudence and rule by ministerial dictate.

Those claiming a two tier justice system have solid evidence of it’s existence in the Begum case.

Those fearing the UK Government being captured by a religious group that then replaces common law with theocratic practice ought to consider the consequences of setting a precedence of Government, not open courts of law, deciding guilt and stripping people of their rights and citizenship on the basis of edict.

The Begum case obliterates Clause 39 of Magna Carta, it is an extremely dangerous precedent

The "Centuries old laws and jurisprudence" you refer to hails from back in the days when this sort of madness did not exist it needs an upgrade.

Yes two tier justice does exist and in this instance its an unfortunate necessity at least until the above upgrade is installed.

Like it or not , A far more dangerous precedent has already been set,simply by allowing thousands of unvetted potential terrorists to remain in the UK

Nobody except the insane <flame removed - Mod> would want her to be allowed to return

Be easier if she got to France and jumped on a rubber boat, other than that, she made her choice to go and join the killers..............

14 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

The "Centuries old laws and jurisprudence" you refer to hails from back in the days when this sort of madness did not exist it needs an upgrade.

Yes two tier justice does exist and in this instance its an unfortunate necessity at least until the above upgrade is installed.

Like it or not , A far more dangerous precedent has already been set,simply by allowing thousands of unvetted potential terrorists to remain in the UK

Nobody except the insane ( and you of course) would want her to be allowed to return

I’ll-informed nonsense.

The centuries old jurisprudence I refer to goes back to Magna Carta and the need at that time to prevent the monarch exiling people or otherwise subjecting people to summary judgement by executive order.

I’ve explained precisely why you might want to think this through.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve explained precisely why you might want to think this through.

No you have explained only why you, personally, think I should "think this through" Well I have thought it through and I would prefer it if she was allowed to remain where she is , it is after all where she chose to be, and I would not presume to disagree with her decision

28 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Nobody except the insane ( and you of course) would want her to be allowed to return

Some folks never criticize Muslim terrorists. Watch their posts.

They share the same goals.

2 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

No you have explained only why you, personally, think I should "think this through" Well I have thought it through and I would prefer it if she was allowed to remain where she is , it is after all where she chose to be, and I would not presume to disagree with her decision

You are right, when I say ‘I have explained why you should think it through’ I am only giving my personal view.

I have not expressed any view on whether or not Begum should remain where she is or be allowed to return to the UK.

So you have correctly identified one of my views in this post while imagining my views in your earlier comment.

34 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Nobody except the insane ( and you of course) would want her to be allowed to return

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, they don't. They specifically include the member you were replying to. English clearly is not your first language.

Nah i would have,correctly, used the phrase "only insane people such as yourself...." had I wished to include the member I was replying to in that category

I purposely did not use those words as I don't consider that member to be insane, if you would like to suggest an alternative way for me to express that, I am always willing to defer to a more competent wordsmith. I apologise for confusing you

What is your first language ?

If the ECHR rules against the UK government.

Then the government should just say we do not accept your decision and will not implement it.

In fact they shouldn't even try to defend it in court just issue a statement to that effect.

3 minutes ago, Bannoi said:

If the ECHR rules against the UK government.

Then the government should just say we do not accept your decision and will not implement it.

In fact they shouldn't even try to defend it in court just issue a statement to that effect.

An unsigned statement would suffice, isn't that what some euro judge did when stopping a flight intended to repatriate a foreign rapist a few months again.

No response at all would be even better,

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Simple enough case to defend.

Provide the ECHR the records of Begum’s criminal convictions.

It is irrelevant. The case is not about criminal convictions. Why bring that up?

The British Nationality Act 1981 allows a secretary of state to deprive a person of citizenship status if “satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”. Secretary Javid did so on the basis that she was a threat to national security. Her support and participation in ISIS/ISIL terrorism abroad was sufficient. She is a Bangladeshi national and will find a welcoming and warm reception in Bangladesh amongst people who are like minded and share her devotion to Shiite doctrine.

The interjection of a foreign court that is already biased in favour of the admission of violent and dangerous migrants into the EU does not bode well for the UK. Will the poor people of the UK ever be rid of the EU interference? It is no wonder reform surges in the polls, when the people of the UK are abandoned by their current government.

Begum also holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, she can move to Bangladeshi.

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are right, when I say ‘I have explained why you should think it through’ I am only giving my personal view.

I have not expressed any view on whether or not Begum should remain where she is or be allowed to return to the UK.

So you have correctly identified one of my views in this post while imagining my views in your earlier comment.

Ok apologies if I have made an incorrect assumption, so for the avoidance of any further misunderstanding, just put me right on this, do you think she should be allowed to return to the UK. Yes or no?

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

It is irrelevant. The case is not about criminal convictions. Why bring that up?

The British Nationality Act 1981 allows a secretary of state to deprive a person of citizenship status if “satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good”. Secretary Javid did so on the basis that she was a threat to national security. Her support and participation in ISIS/ISIL terrorism abroad was sufficient. She is a Bangladeshi national and will find a welcoming and warm reception in Bangladesh amongst people who are like minded and share her devotion to Shiite doctrine.

The interjection of a foreign court that is already biased in favour of the admission of violent and dangerous migrants into the EU does not bode well for the UK. Will the poor people of the UK ever be rid of the EU interference? It is no wonder reform surges in the polls, when the people of the UK are abandoned by their current government.

I mention criminal conviction because the case is based on zero criminal convictions.

You other points are exactly the use of extrajudicial executive prefer/edict I refer to above and hence my point about why this is a very dangerous precedent.

2 minutes ago, stupidfarang said:

Begum also holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, she can move to Bangladeshi.

Just keep her banged up where she is , no need to complicate matters

3 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Ok apologies if I have made an incorrect assumption, so for the avoidance of any further misunderstanding, just put me right on this, do you think she should be allowed to return to the UK. Yes or no?

I think she should be given the right to contest allegations of criminality before a jury in an open court of law, like every person accused of serious crimes regardless of how heinous those crimes are.

I think a jury in an open court of law should hand down verdict and justice, not members of the Government executive.

Try her in an open court of law and I will support the verdict.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I mention criminal conviction because the case is based on zero criminal convictions.

You other points are exactly the use of extrajudicial executive prefer/edict I refer to above and hence my point about why this is a very dangerous precedent.

The woman was (and may still be) a supporter of terrorists who have done harm to the UK interests. She presented a clear threat to public security. The designation as a security risk was done after an extensive review and study. It was repeatedly scrutinized. This is not a dangerous precedent because it is a specific case. She will be in clover in Bangladesh.

4 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

The woman was (and may still be) a supporter of terrorists who have done harm to the UK interests. She presented a clear threat to public security. The designation as a security risk was done after an extensive review and study. It was repeatedly scrutinized. This is not a dangerous precedent because it is a specific case. She will be in clover in Bangladesh.

If that’s the case then it wouldn’t be too difficult for the Government to place their evidence before a jury in an open court of law.

The court might also address the ‘and may still be’ bit.

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think she should be given the right to contest allegations of criminality before a jury in an open court of law, like every person accused of serious crimes regardless of how heinous those crimes are.

I think a jury in an open court of law should hand down verdict and justice, not members of the Government executive.

Try her in an open court of law and I will support the verdict.

Fair enough , I can see where you are coming from , but due to the adverse publicity she has already attracted, are you not concerned she might not receive a "fair" trial ?

When she is convicted by a jury, assuming trial by jury is still an option , and the predictable appeal to the EHCR results in a much reduced sentence to that she receives in the UK court would you support that verdict too?

The UK whether we like it or not is currently akin to a tinder box, I don't see anything to be gained by causing unnecessary sparks, those sparks that would be generated if she so much as set foot on UK soil would be bad enough , never mind those generated by any ECHR interference

Of course summary justice by politicians is not Ideal, but in this situation I feel that leaving her where she is the best option, along with a gagging order for the press.

There is something to be said for " Out of sight and out of mind " in this case

1 hour ago, Bannoi said:

If the ECHR rules against the UK government.

Then the government should just say we do not accept your decision and will not implement it.

In fact they shouldn't even try to defend it in court just issue a statement to that effect.

Its not that simple.

An adverse ruling (e.g., finding the citizenship revocation breached rights, such as protections against trafficking or effective remedy) would obligate the UK to take steps to remedy the violation.

The UK cannot legally "not accept" the ruling without serious consequences, but it can drag its feet, minimally comply, or effectively defy the spirit while claiming technical adherence—exactly as it has done in high-profile cases before.
The Supreme Court’s ruling remains domestically binding unless Parliament changes the law. An ECHR loss would be embarrassing and costly politically/internationally, but unlikely to force Begum’s return or citizenship restoration in practice.

@Bday Prang @stevenl Stop the back on forth flames and bickering please. Thank you.
Posts removed.

I remember that she wasn't kidnapped. She had to go secretly to get to the place she wanted to go. She got railed every night to feel she was helping the cause of ISIS. There was nothing involuntary.

BUT, she was 15 so too young to know what she was doing. Funny how arrogant she was before realizing the consequences of her actions. A case of literally FAFO.

47 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Fair enough , I can see where you are coming from , but due to the adverse publicity she has already attracted, are you not concerned she might not receive a "fair" trial ?

When she is convicted by a jury, assuming trial by jury is still an option , and the predictable appeal to the EHCR results in a much reduced sentence to that she receives in the UK court would you support that verdict too?

The UK whether we like it or not is currently akin to a tinder box, I don't see anything to be gained by causing unnecessary sparks, those sparks that would be generated if she so much as set foot on UK soil would be bad enough , never mind those generated by any ECHR interference

Of course summary justice by politicians is not Ideal, but in this situation I feel that leaving her where she is the best option, along with a gagging order for the press.

There is something to be said for " Out of sight and out of mind " in this case

Summary Justice and gagging orders for the press.

You clearly do not see where I am coming from.