‘The daughter of a Muslim man who was murdered by a white supremacist as he walked home from evening prayers at a Birmingham mosque is launching a campaign calling for the government to adopt an official definition of Islamophobia.’
The Guardian, 5th April 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Home Office’s refusal to disclose the number of women who, like Shamima Begum, have been deprived of their British citizenship after travelling to join Islamic State is under investigation by the information commissioner.’
The Guardian, 29th March 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The Supreme Court has come under significant criticism for its handling of the Shamima Begum case, decided on 26 February. Much has already been said in relation to the deference that the court showed to the executive, with some arguing that it was improper or even a complete abdication of the judicial role itself. This post seeks to clarify what precisely the court did and did not do in relation to the exercise of its constitutional duty to review the legality of executive action. It will suggest that the Court did not engage in any strong deference as to the nature of Begum’s rights nor to the balance to be struck between those rights and the common good. Such questions remained wholly within the purview of the Court. While the Court did pay due respect to the executive’s authority to determine and pursue the common good, this was subject to an assessment of lawfulness. Any deference, if it can even be called deference, was to the rule of law, given both the statutory scheme in question and the common law distinction between review and appeal. The determination of the scope of individual rights entails an exercise of judicial interpretation which seeks to strike an appropriate balance between the applicable legal considerations. It is not deference for the court to include constitutional principles such as the separation of powers within those considerations.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 17th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘No doubt much will be written on the Supreme Court’s Shamima Begum ruling handed down on 26 February. The ruling has a number of notable features. In particular, a high level of deference was afforded to the executive which seems to contrast with the Supreme Court’s approach in high profile constitutional cases of recent years (such as, for example, in the Miller cases). A key feature of this deference is that it is offered in a national security context, where judicial deference has often played a role. This deference is partly justified by the Court on the grounds that Ministers are democratically accountable for national security decisions. However, as this post argues, the extent to which democratic accountability is a legitimate ground for judicial deference to national security decisions is questionable in light of current UK practice. This post raises three difficulties with relying on democratic accountability as a ground for deference in the UK national security context.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 9th March 2021
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘On 26 February 2021, the Supreme Court refused permission for Shamima Begum to return to the UK. The Supreme Court judgment in the high-profile case of the British woman who left the UK as a 15-year-old girl to travel to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State, however, resulted in the Court effectively washing its hands of the case staying it until a full hearing can occur in future—a remote possibility. In the judgment, Lord Reed held the Court of Appeal was in error by substituting its own view of the balance to be struck between national security and the applicant’s rights. In so doing, the Court of Appeal did not give the Secretary of State’s assessment due respect. In this brief post, I wish to focus on a principal aspect of the Supreme Court’s judgment: the concept of deference.’
Oxford Human Rights Hub, 8th March 2021
Source: ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk
‘Ms Shamima Begum was born and raised in the UK. She was a British citizen at birth and at age 15 she travelled to Syria with two friends and soon afterwards she married an ISIS fighter and is currently detained in poor conditions in the Al-Roj camp run by the Syrian Democratic Forces. She now wishes to return home to the UK to have a fair and effective appeal. She was deprived of her British citizenship on 19 February 2019 because the SSHD believed that her return would present a risk to national security. She applied for leave to enter (LTE) the UK so that she could pursue an appeal against the deprivation decision. The Court of Appeal unanimously held that the only way Ms Begum, can have a fair and effective appeal is to be permitted to come into the UK to pursue her appeal. King, Flaux and Singh LJJ found that fairness and justice must – on the facts of her case – outweigh any national security concerns. But in a twist of fate, the Supreme Court unanimously held in favour of the SSHD and found that the right to a fair hearing does not trump everything else, such as the public’s safety. The court took the view that if a vital public interest makes it impossible for a case to be fairly heard, then the courts cannot ordinarily hear it. Therefore, her deprivation appeal should be stayed until she can play an effective part in it without compromising the public’s safety.’
EIN Blog, 7th March 2021
Source: www.ein.org.uk
‘Since 2019 when Shamima Begum was found in a camp in north Syria, her hopes of returning to the UK have ebbed and flowed (see here and here). Stripped of her British citizenship, she brought three sets of legal proceedings. Last week, after a ruling by the Supreme Court, her hopes receded once more. The Home Secretary was entitled to refuse her entry to the UK to pursue her appeal against the loss of citizenship, the Court ruled. So, Ms Begum’s appeal has been stayed, pending some change in her circumstances which will enable her to participate in a hearing – albeit from outside the UK.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 1st March 2021
Source: ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘Shamima Begum has lost her legal battle attempting to return to the UK to fight for her British citizenship. The Supreme Court found that the former Isis member did not need to be in the country to have a “fair and effective appeal”, overturning a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal.’
The Independent, 26th February 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘James Wood QC discusses recent sentence appeals on minimum terms in discretionary life sentences. He assesses the likely impact of the recent statutory changes increasing the minimum term to be served by some prisoners serving determinate sentences from ½ to 2/3. He identifies prosecutorial appeals to increase minimum terms in discretionary life sentences by the Attorney General, and warns that the judicial and statutory drift appears to be towards a similar lengthening from ½ to 2/3 of the minimum term to be served by those sentenced to discretionary life sentences on grounds of dangerousness.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 24th February 2021
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Massive gaps in the law allow terrorism to be glorified and hatred to be spread, and a major crackdown is needed to stop more violence being triggered, an official report has said.’
The Guardian, 24th February 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A senior leader of a terrorist network has been jailed after sparking a manhunt that caused nine-hour tailbacks in Dover.’
The Independent, 23rd February 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Leading human rights groups including Liberty, Amnesty International and the Runnymede Trust have announced a boycott into a pending review of the Government’s Prevent Strategy.’
Each Other, 17th February 2021
Source: eachother.org.uk
‘Stephen Wood QC considers this important recent case concerning the notification requirements imposed upon Defendants, following conviction for terrorism offences.’
Broadway House Chambers, 17th February 2021
Source: broadwayhouse.co.uk
‘Two members of the banned group al-Muhajiroun have lost an appeal against terrorism measures used by the government to limit their activities. The BBC has investigated how the measures are being employed to disrupt the organisation’s leadership.’
BBC News, 11th February 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The UK’s youngest known terror offender has walked free from court after recruiting members for a neo-Nazi group.’
The Independent, 8th February 2021
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The government has reportedly ordered an investigation into the extreme fringes on both ends of the political spectrum, with a peer tasked with offering recommendations to the prime minister and home secretary. The review will be led by John Woodcock, the former Labour MP who now sits in the upper chamber as Lord Walney and was appointed as the government’s independent adviser on political violence and disruption last November.’
The Guardian, 8th February 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘A convicted terrorist who was jailed for his role in an al Qaida-inspired terrorist group is suing the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).’
BBC News, 3rd February 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The teenage leader of a neo-Nazi group has become the youngest person in the UK to have committed a terrorist offence.’
BBC News, 1st February 2021
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
“I was one of 15 charged for blocking a deportation flight. We’ve got justice, but victims of the UK’s hostile environment haven’t.”
The Guardian, 2nd February 2021
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘If concerns are raised that a person might be vulnerable to radicalisation, how long can a police force hold data about that person? This was the question facing the High Court in the case of R (II) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2020] EWHC 2528 (Admin), which held that the police’s continued retention of data a sixteen year old was contrary to the Data Protection Act 2018 and article 8. In finding this, the court held that a force’s retention of data must be proportionate, what is proportionate in any given situation is fact-specific and that when the police cease to be able to identify a policing purpose for continued retention of personal data, it should be deleted.’
UK Police Law Blog, 28th January 2021
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
© Inner Temple Library 2023