Court rules Priti Patel was WRONG to remove British citizenship from two British-Bangladeshi women and one man who ‘went to Syria to join ISIS’
A court has ruled that Priti Patel was wrong to remove British citizenship from two British-Bangladeshi women and one man said to have travelled to Syria to join ISIS.
It comes after the Supreme Court ruled last month that ISIS bride Shemima Begum cannot return to the UK to pursue an appeal against the removal of her British citizenship.
The two women, who were born in the UK and are known only as C3 and C4, argued that the decision to revoke their British citizenship on the grounds of national security rendered them stateless and was therefore unlawful.
C3 is in the al-Roj camp in Syria – where Ms Begum is currently detained – with her children, while C4 is being held with her children in the ‘notorious’ al-Hawl camp, where conditions have been described by the International Committee of the Red Cross as ‘apocalyptic’.
Their British citizenship was removed in November 2019, but their lawyers claim they were not told about the decision until six weeks later, when the Foreign Office told their families that they would not provide ‘consular assistance’ as they were no longer British citizens.
C7, who was born in Bangladesh but became a British citizen at birth, is also alleged to have travelled to Syria to join to IS.
He was informed in March that the Home Office was going to remove his British citizenship on the basis that he had ‘aligned’ with IS and was a threat to UK national security.
All three are appealing against the decision to revoke their British citizenship at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) – a specialist tribunal which hears challenges to decisions to remove someone’s British citizenship on national security grounds – this week.
At the start of a five-day preliminary hearing on Monday, Dan Squires QC, for C3 and C4, told the tribunal that neither of his clients was a Bangladeshi citizen at the time their British citizenship was revoked, and they were therefore made stateless by the decision.
He added that, even if C3 did have Bangladeshi citizenship at birth, ‘she was not a Bangladeshi citizen on the date of the deprivation decision because she would have lost her citizenship when she turned 21’ under Bangladeshi law.
Mr Squires said C4 was born a Bangladeshi citizen ‘by descent’ through her father, but that she also lost that citizenship when she turned 21.
He said they were currently being held in ‘appalling conditions’ and ‘require UK assistance which is currently being refused on the basis that they are no longer citizens’.