Shamima Begum to cost taxpayers up to £7million in legal bills after refusing to accept defeat in citizenship case
JIHADI bride Shamima Begum is likely to cost the taxpayer up to £7 million in legal bills after refusing to accept the latest defeat in her citizenship row.
Begumconsidered a threat to national security, her plea to get her British passport back was rejected by judges.
3
3
3
Her fight to return home has has already cost more than £250,000 in legal aidExperts estimate this could raise as much as £7 million if she takes her case to the Supreme now Court.
Paul Fulcher of The Legal Costs Experts told The Sun: “I can see this reaching £7 million.
“It can only get higher with the way this case is going. It is a huge cost to the taxpayer.”
Yesterday’s Court of Appeal Begum’s rejection of the new legal challenge was hailed as the best outcome for Britain.
READ MORE ABOUT SHAMIMA BEGUM
Begum was 15 when she traveled from Bethnal Green, east London, to London Syria to join IS. Within weeks she married a jihadist, 27, from the Netherlands. She had three children who all died.
Begum, now 24, was stripped of her British citizenship in 2019 for reasons of national security and is in a refugee camp in Syria.
Last year she lost an appeal against the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Committee.
And yesterday, three judges unanimously rejected Begum’s legal bid to overturn that ruling.
Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr, joined by Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Whipple, said: “You could say the decision in Ms Begum’s case was harsh. It could also be argued that Mrs Begum is the author of her own misfortune.
“But it is not for this court to agree or disagree. The court’s only task was to assess whether the confiscation decision was unlawful. As this was not the case, Ms Begum’s appeal is rejected.”
Ex-Minister of Immigration Robert Jenrick emphasized: “This is the right decision. British citizenship is a great privilege. People who hate our country, threaten it, associate themselves with those who murder our citizens and armed forces, should not rely on its blessings. National security must always come first.”
Ms Begum’s legal team, who claim she is a potential victim of human trafficking, could now seek permission to challenge the ruling in court. High Council or European Court of Human Rights.
Defense attorney Daniel Furner said, “We’re going to keep fighting.”
No10 said: “We are pleased that the court has ruled in favor of the government.”
Shamima Begum – how she fled Britain for Syria
Begum and two friends – Kadiza Sultana And Amira Abase – fled to Syria in February 2015.
She used her older sister’s passport to flee with her Bethnal Green Academy friends.
The trio flew to Turkey and then crossed the border into Syria with the help of smugglers.
Within weeks of arriving, Shamima was married to Isis jihadi Yago Riedijk, 27, from the Netherlands.
They had two children who died of malnutrition and disease.
The couple was separated when they fled Baghouz, the village where a few hundred ISIS fighters were entrenched in a desperate last stand.
Shamima ended up in a Kurdish refugee camp where she ended up gave birth to her third child.
Eldest sister Renu revealed that her family had lost contact with her “for the longest time” yet she was found by a Times journalist.
Home Secretary Sajid Javid stripped her of her British citizenship to prevent her from ever returning.
Then beg lost a legal battle to return to Britain for a judicial appeal over the revocation of her British citizenship in February 2021.
The High Court ruled unanimously in favor of the government, saying she cannot return to Britain for a court case to reclaim her British passport, for the safety of the public.
Lord Reed said her legal bid to reclaim her British citizenship should be postponed until she is no longer considered a threat to national security.
Begum launched an appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in 2022 while languishing in a refugee camp.
She later lost this bid, but her lawyers launched a new bid at the Court of Appeal.
This was rejected by judges, who found the SIAC ruling was lawful.