Shamima Begum ruling reignites debate over Britons who joined Isis

The latest ruling in the Shamima Begum case has reignited the debate over how a state should deal with so-called foreign fighters and their families.

Begum, 20, fled to Syria as a child to assist Isis in its mission to establish a caliphate under which its warped interpretation of Islam would rule.

Islamic State’s grip on Syria and neighbouring Iraq has since crumbled. Begum has since faced years of hardship – losing three children in quick succession and finding herself isolated in squalid conditions at a refugee camp – and had her British citizenship stripped.

Sajid Javid, who was home secretary at the time, argued that his response was proportionate. “Whatever role they took in the so-called caliphate, they all supported a terrorist organisation and in doing so they have shown they hate our country and the values we stand for,” he said of Britons who fled to Syria to join Isis.

British security sources have argued Begum represents a security risk, and that she was a member of al-Hisba, Isis’s morality police, during which time she carried a Kalashnikov rifle and allegedly “stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests”.

Others have argued Begum was vulnerable when she left the UK, a victim of grooming, and advocate more compassionate solutions.

But the thrust behind the most recent twist in Begum’s legal battle is driven by principles of access to justice and the right to a fair trial – rather than issues of security or Begum’s personal story.

The court of appeal on Thursday determined that the only way Begum could have a fair and effective appeal against the stripping of her citizenship was to be permitted to come to the UK to pursue the action and as a result overturned a ruling that upheld the government’s decision.

Her lawyer, Daniel Furner, set out the core issues at play in a statement after the ruling. “The court’s judgment today is an important reminder that fairness and the rule of law remain cornerstones of the British legal system and that they set the legal limits within which the home secretary may act.

“Justice cannot be defeated, or indefinitely delayed, because a case is difficult or because national security is engaged. Fundamental rights are not extinguished because a person is abroad, or because the allegations against them are serious.”

The Home Office and Downing Street were not impressed. The government is to apply for permission to appeal against the judgment, and to stay its effects pending any onward appeal, ensuring the saga will drag on.

Meanwhile, the ruling has already prompted fears that a precedent will be set and the 150 or more individuals who have had their citizenship stripped, many of whom for national security concerns, will attempt similar appeals.

Potential returnees could include Jack Letts, the Muslim convert who has been accused of being a member of Isis, the sisters and so-called “Isis brides” Reema Iqbal and Zara Iqbal. Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, alleged members of the so-called “Beatles”, a group of British jihadists who oversaw the murder and beheading of captives in Syria, could also seek to return if they are released from US custody.

Dr Alan Mendoza, executive director of the neoconservative thinktank Henry Jackson Society, warned: “The deeply troubling implication of this judgment is that up to 150 terrorists are now legally entitled to enter the UK in order to appeal the decision in their case. The already overworked security services will have their work cut out with this potential sudden influx. This decision could have dramatic repercussions for our entire counter-terror strategy.”