Court of Appeal Upholds Deprivation of Shamima Begum's British Citizenship on National Security Grounds

Citation: [2024] EWCA Civ 152
Judgment on


In the case of Shamima Begum v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 152, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) scrutinized a range of important legal principles pertaining to the deprivation of British citizenship on grounds of national security, the implications of trafficking under European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 4, the lawful exercise of discretion under public law, de facto statelessness, procedural fairness, and the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010. This article aims to distil the pivotal topics deliberated and the legal principles applied in this complex case, which has garnered significant attention due to its intersection with national security and human rights.

Key Facts

Shamima Begum, who had departed the UK to align with ISIL in Syria at the age of 15, was deprived of her British citizenship in 2019 by the then Secretary of State, Sajid Javid MP. Begum’s appeals to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) and subsequent legal actions all failed. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the legality of these decisions, focusing on whether SIAC correctly concluded that the Secretary of State’s decision was lawful.

Deprivation of Citizenship

The case assessed the legality of deprivation of citizenship under s 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981), which must be conducive to the public good and cannot render an individual stateless (s 40(4)).

Trafficking and ECHR Article 4

The court considered the obligations under Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding trafficking, parallel to the European Convention Against Trafficking (ECAT) provisions. It analyzed the operational, investigative, and possible restitutionary obligations.

Procedural Fairness and Consultation

The legal requirement for prior representation before making a deprivation order was scrutinized in the context of fairness and the presumption against such representation given the nature of deprivation powers and the right to appeal.

Public Sector Equality Duty

The applicability of s 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010, mandating public authorities to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, was debated. SIAC’s interpretation of section 192 of the same act, providing a national security exemption to the PSED, was also examined.


The Court of Appeal upheld SIAC’s decision, finding no material error in the Secretary of State’s exercise of discretion under s 40(2) even though Begum was a victim of trafficking. The court surmised that the Secretary of State was justified in not repatriating Begum, and the appeal process adequately provided the opportunity to address issues that would have been raised in prior representation. Additionally, the court supported the Secretary of State’s reliance on the national security exemption under section 192 in relation to the PSED.


In the case of Begum v The Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of Appeal upheld the legal grounds on which Shamima Begum was deprived of her British citizenship. Central to the court’s reasoning was the assessment that the deprivation was lawful and proportionate to the public good. The findings reflected the complexity of balancing individual rights against national security concerns. The decision underscores the limited scope for judicial intervention in national security decisions and reflects the stringent application of legal standards in cases involving terrorism and public safety.

Related Summaries