ISIS Bride Shamima Begum Handed Fresh Hope of UK Comeback After European Court Steps In
Shamima Begum’s lawyers say she has been given what they describe as a rare and unusual chance after judges in Europe stepped into her case. They argue that the European Court of Human Rights has now opened the door for her situation to be looked at again, something they say has not happened before in a case like this.
Her attempt to return to the UK has gained new attention after European judges questioned the British government’s decision to strip her of her citizenship. The court has formally asked the Home Office to explain why it took away her British nationality and whether that decision broke international human rights or anti-trafficking laws. This move has raised the possibility of another legal confrontation between the UK and judges in Strasbourg.
According to Begum’s legal team, this intervention gives her a fresh chance to argue that her rights were violated, especially around claims that she was trafficked as a minor. The court wants the UK government to respond to specific questions about whether it acted lawfully and fairly when it removed her citizenship.
Senior political figures in the UK have reacted angrily. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said there should be no circumstances under which Begum is allowed back into Britain. He argued that she made a clear choice to join ISIS and should face the consequences of that decision. He also criticised the involvement of a European court, saying decisions about who enters the UK should be made by Britain alone, not judges abroad.
Former Security Minister Sir Ben Wallace, who was involved in the original decision to remove her citizenship, strongly defended the government’s actions. He said Begum chose freely to support a terrorist organisation that rejects Western laws and values. In his view, she was not a victim but someone who knowingly joined ISIS and supported its violent campaign. He argued that losing her citizenship was justified and said it was ironic for her to now rely on a legal system that ISIS itself would want to destroy. His message was blunt: she chose to go, and she should remain where she is.
The formal exchange between the European court and the Home Office has renewed public concern that Begum could one day be allowed back into the UK. Many cases sent to the court are rejected early on, so the fact that this one has reached this stage suggests the judges believe there may be serious issues worth examining. In particular, it signals concern that her human rights could have been breached.
Begum was born and raised in east London before leaving the UK at the age of 15 in 2015 with two school friends to travel to Syria and join ISIS. While there, she married a Dutch ISIS fighter and had three children, all of whom later died. In 2019, the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid removed her British citizenship, arguing that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship and therefore would not be left stateless. That decision was later backed by the UK Supreme Court.
Now 26 years old, Begum remains in the al-Roj detention camp in Syria, which holds thousands of former ISIS supporters and their families. She has already lost all of her appeals in the UK courts, making this European court intervention her latest and possibly final legal route.
Her lawyers at Birnberg Peirce Solicitors say the court’s involvement is a major development. The Home Office has been asked to respond within a set time to four detailed questions about how it handled her case. One of these questions asks whether removing her citizenship violated her rights under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which covers protection from slavery and human trafficking.
The judges have also suggested they are concerned that the UK may have used citizenship removal as a form of punishment rather than a purely administrative measure. They referred to a previous ruling where the UK was found to have failed in protecting children who were victims of trafficking, raising questions about whether Begum should have been treated in a similar way.
Another key issue raised is whether Begum was still legally under UK jurisdiction at the time her citizenship was removed, even though she was physically outside the country. The court is also asking whether the Home Secretary had a duty to properly assess whether she was a trafficking victim before making such a life-changing decision.
Former Immigration Minister Kevin Foster criticised the European court’s involvement, accusing it of interfering in UK matters and defending someone who showed no concern for the rights of others when supporting extremists. He said the case had already been thoroughly examined by British courts and that the decision had been upheld. He added that the court’s focus on cases like Begum’s has damaged its reputation among the British public.
Begum’s lawyer, Gareth Peirce, strongly disagreed. She said the court’s action creates a chance for both the UK and Begum to finally confront serious issues that previous governments ignored or mishandled. She argued that Begum was a 15-year-old child who was manipulated, deceived, and groomed into travelling to ISIS-controlled territory for sexual exploitation. According to her, it is clear that Begum was vulnerable and failed by multiple safeguarding systems.
Peirce also claimed authorities missed clear warning signs before Begum left the UK. She said the police failed to properly warn families, dismissed concerns raised by schools, and did not take basic safeguarding steps to stop the girls from travelling, even though the risks were known in advance.
In response, a Home Office spokesperson said the government’s priority is protecting the UK and its citizens. They stated that Begum was considered a national security threat and that this is why her citizenship was revoked. The spokesperson added that the government will strongly defend its decision and maintain that she cannot return to the UK.
