Shamima Begum

[KINGAA]

I find this whole thing just so swaying. At times I’m like poor girl, was trafficked as a vulnerable teen then I’m reminded of what she was part of and how she still isn’t sorry.

The government should never take someone’s citizenship away, she is British - end of but I can see why they don’t want her. They will have more intelligence on her than we’ll ever publicly know….. it’s a tough one.

I don’t believe she could be rehabbed well in this country right now. I wouldnt trust someone to actually care about her and helping her.

Such a strange case that I will never make my mind up on

 

[Moth]

Realistically "Membership of a proscribed organisation" and whatever the actual wording of spreading terrorist propaganda is. IIRC the max sentence in both cases is 10 years.

In practice her age and the alleged grooming would be a defence and or mitigation. But it should in the end be up to a court, not the government.

Highly theoretically you could make an argument for Treason, but I think the CPS would tell you to get lost.

From memory (and it's possible that the guidelines have changed since I last looked at them) sentencing for being a member of a proscribed organisation is graded according to the level of involvement.

Unless she was found to be a "prominent" or an "active" member of ISIS I think the guideline is for a range between community service and 4 years imprisonment with the starting point being 2 years. The guidelines also say that custodial sentences are reserved for the most serious offences.

As you say, add in mitigation due to her age, previous good character, coercion / trafficking etc. and it's possible that even if found guilty she wouldn't spend any time in prison.

I don't disagree what you say about any sanctions being the responsibility of a court not the government.

 

[OnlyHereForTheLolz]

Aaah yes, the great concern for human rights and national security conspiracy

What? The rights of an extremist? Yeah, no thanks, don't want to be part of your society. You should go and do some outreach work in the camps and then tell me how innocent they are

 

[stunrw]

From memory (and it's possible that the guidelines have changed since I last looked at them) sentencing for being a member of a proscribed organisation is graded according to the level of involvement.

Unless she was found to be a "prominent" or an "active" member of ISIS I think the guideline is for a range between community service and 4 years imprisonment with the starting point being 2 years. The guidelines also say that custodial sentences are reserved for the most serious offences.

As you say, add in mitigation due to her age, previous good character, coercion / trafficking etc. and it's possible that even if found guilty she wouldn't spend any time in prison.

I don't disagree what you say about any sanctions being the responsibility of a court not the government.

These are the latest on our intranet for the UK

Proscribed organisations - membership

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

However know one other than the authorities in the UK knows the full story.......

 

[monga]

Shamima Begum ruling sets dangerous precedent, say legal experts | Shamima Begum | The Guardian
(from 2021 just for context)



I see this as such a flawed argument as ultimately the public don't know what danger she poses, if any. It really comes down to "we don't like this person" for the electorate who essentially replace the courts on accountability in this little arrangement

The public don’t need to know that’s why we have intelligence and security personnel.

 

[stunrw]

@Moth

It would end up 1C wouldnt it

Or be mired in years of redacted stuff. And still end up as 1C
---

Home Secretary Suella Braverman also welcomed the court's decision.


"My priority is, and always will be, the safety and security of the UK," she said.

Did make me chuckle.

I assume this safety and security is before she sends stuff to her unencrypted email

 

[Polythene Pam]

What? The rights of an extremist? Yeah, no thanks, don't want to be part of your society. You should go and do some outreach work in the camps and then tell me how innocent they are

Why is there no reaction button?
---

From memory (and it's possible that the guidelines have changed since I last looked at them) sentencing for being a member of a proscribed organisation is graded according to the level of involvement.

Unless she was found to be a "prominent" or an "active" member of ISIS I think the guideline is for a range between community service and 4 years imprisonment with the starting point being 2 years. The guidelines also say that custodial sentences are reserved for the most serious offences.

As you say, add in mitigation due to her age, previous good character, coercion / trafficking etc. and it's possible that even if found guilty she wouldn't spend any time in prison.

I don't disagree what you say about any sanctions being the responsibility of a court not the government.

So basically we are left with a position where if your crimes aren't sufficiently bad for you to be imprisoned the government can just revoke your citizenship. That is scary.

No one is saying classified security information should be shared but clearly whatever they have isn't actually that bad. If it was, they'd prosecute her.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, she's more of a threat in Syria than she is here. When (not if) the caliphate starts to regroup she will be right there with nowhere else to turn. It makes zero sense from a national security perspective to leave her free.
Escapes from the camp happen every day. She could easily get to Europe.
If she's a threat lock her up.

 

[Emsie]

Well maybe I don't want my money funding legal cases for Shamima Begum, nor paying for her upkeep if she came back. Paying our hard working NHS staff a bit more, is a FAR MORE deserving cause than Shamima.

She is a great example of what is wrong with Legal Aid in the UK. A Non citizen, or no legal right to be here, you get access to it no questions asked. Legally live in the UK, you have to jump through many hoops to get it, if at all.

However, some people on this thread are more than happy for endless public money to be be continually wasted on this shyster - Whilst having the bloody cheek to bemoan about the state of public services on the other hand.

At the end of the day, any money wasted on Shamima Begum, her legal fees, etc, etc, etc, is money that could be better spent on other things in society.

You're literally proving my point. We don't get to decide what tax payer money is spent on and what's important to you won't be important to me. The government aren't going to donate the millions they have saved on shamina to the NHS now are they.
Instead shamina will continue to fight this using more tax payer funds, whilst the Tories carry on with their populist action in the vain hope it will help them stay in power.
Shamina isn't intelligent enough to be a threat imo. She comes across as still being a 15 year old girl who hasn't got a clue what is going on.

 

[Merpedy]

The public don’t need to know that’s why we have intelligence and security personnel.

You’re sort of missing the point

The public is meant to hold the ministers making these decisions accountable but these decisions are largely unreported unless you seek them. Shamima is an unusual case but again… you’re deciding based on her history, not whether she’s is an actual danger to national security. No one seems to have confirmed what she did for ISIS for example

Someone already mentioned it and the guardian article does too but there are people who came back to Britain after joining and fleeing ISIS. We don’t seem to know anything about them but again… you are meant to hold the ministers making those decisions accountable

 

[monga]

You’re sort of missing the point

The public is meant to hold the ministers making these decisions accountable but these decisions are largely unreported unless you seek them. Shamima is an unusual case but again… you’re deciding based on her history, not whether she’s is an actual danger to national security. No one seems to have confirmed what she did for ISIS for example

Someone already mentioned it and the guardian article does too but there are people who came back to Britain after joining and fleeing ISIS. We don’t seem to know anything about them but again… you are meant to hold the ministers making those decisions accountable

I’m basing it on what the government have said, we can only trust its in the country’s best interests .What country lets their citizens into intelligence operations

 

[Merpedy]

I’m basing it on what the government have said, we can only trust its in the country’s best interests .What country lets their citizens into intelligence operations

I’m sure there are ways around it without divulging intelligence operations. Generally it seems like a bit of a cheap excuse to me

 

[stunrw]

You’re sort of missing the point

The public is meant to hold the ministers making these decisions accountable but these decisions are largely unreported unless you seek them. Shamima is an unusual case but again… you’re deciding based on her history, not whether she’s is an actual danger to national security. No one seems to have confirmed what she did for ISIS for example

Someone already mentioned it and the guardian article does too but there are people who came back to Britain after joining and fleeing ISIS. We don’t seem to know anything about them but again… you are meant to hold the ministers making those decisions accountable

But the whole point I and others have been trying to make all day is that someone, ie the security services in whatever country, know something. Therefore Jay J made his decision based on UK law as was written when he and colleagues wrote the judgement.

Each case before SIAC hears stuff that can NEVER be in the public domain. The media (and I'm not doing a Trump here) can only report on what was in the open judgement.

Let the legal process do it's thing. Nobody, unless you have DV clearance will know what they know. Jay J and colleagues do. Because they have DV clearance. Let the process carry on to its conclusion.

Shouting loudly. Saying some things that I've seen on here today that have made me question being a member, will not change how the system works.

 

[Polythene Pam]

I’m basing it on what the government have said, we can only trust its in the country’s best interests .What country lets their citizens into intelligence operations

Blind trust in any government is kinda terrifying. We are supposed to have open justice in this country.

Also how is it considered safe to leave her in Syria and in the company of extremists if she is so dangerous? I simply cannot understand that logic.

 

[Lazarus]

Thank you both. I read about half of the judgement this morning but even for someone who enjoys reading these things it's dense stuff, dissecting tiny legal points. I skimmed the second part until I got to the decisions on her individual grounds for appeal. It certainly looks like her legal team threw the kitchen sink at it.

I seems to me that the issue for any appeal to higher courts is primarily going to be that Home Secretary should have given weight (I was going to say more weight but it appears he gave none at all) to the argument that she was a child, radicalised and trafficked for sexual exploitation and that the authorities failed to protect her. SIAC appears to accept that this is likely but says it has no power to overrule the Home Sec's decision on that basis. That might ultimately end up in the ECHR (after the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court).

I think it will go to the Supreme Court, but thought it had been to the Appeal Court already, perhaps at a very wary stage, no?
As I said earlier, she has Gareth Pierce as her lawyer now, so I’m sure no stone will be left unturned.
Gareth Pierce represented the Guildford Four; she was portrayed by Emma Thomson in the film In the Name of the Father - she’s formidable. Her costs must be astronomical, and as I repeatedly say, tax payer funded.
---

From memory (and it's possible that the guidelines have changed since I last looked at them) sentencing for being a member of a proscribed organisation is graded according to the level of involvement.

Unless she was found to be a "prominent" or an "active" member of ISIS I think the guideline is for a range between community service and 4 years imprisonment with the starting point being 2 years. The guidelines also say that custodial sentences are reserved for the most serious offences.

As you say, add in mitigation due to her age, previous good character, coercion / trafficking etc. and it's possible that even if found guilty she wouldn't spend any time in prison.

I don't disagree what you say about any sanctions being the responsibility of a court not the government.

I think the government/SIAC are aware of much more about her than the general public will ever know. I think she poses a much higher risk tbh.
There have been many British citizens who have come back from Syria because they didn’t have dual nationality and couldn’t be made stateless. They’re either making a really big example of her or she’s considered too dangerous.

 

[Polythene Pam]

They’re either making a really big example of her or she’s considered too dangerous.

So dangerous its safer to leave her free? Make it make sense

 

[stunrw]

Blind trust in any government is kinda terrifying. We are supposed to have open justice in this country.

Also how is it considered safe to leave her in Syria and in the company of extremists if she is so dangerous? I simply cannot understand that logic.

OK. We are crossing the issues here.

Mr Justice Jay is a member of an Independant judiciary. He doesn't take directions from the government. He adjudicates on the law. As it is written. The other members of the panel are the same.

Jay J is not doing the government's bidding or anything else. He is doing his job as a judge.

Case is front of me is this.
Law says this
Judgement is this

I'm not defending BEGUM at all but saying there is some huge government conspiracy is pure balls.

Rob Jay KC (as he was then) was lead counsel to the Levensen Enquiry. He is not some establishment snowflake

 

[monga]

Blind trust in any government is kinda terrifying. We are supposed to have open justice in this country.

Also how is it considered safe to leave her in Syria and in the company of extremists if she is so dangerous? I simply cannot understand that logic.

Governments will always hold the upper hand, there’s no such thing as open justice, haven’t you ever heard of collusion, especially where terrorists are concerned.

 

[Polythene Pam]

OK. We are crossing the issues here.

Mr Justice Jay is a member of an Independant judiciary. He doesn't take directions from the government. He adjudicates on the law. As it is written. The other members of the panel are the same.

Jay J is not doing the government's bidding or anything else. He is doing his job as a judge.

Case is front of me is this.
Law says this
Judgement is this

I'm not defending BEGUM at all but saying there is some huge government conspiracy is pure balls.

Rob Jay KC (as he was then) was lead counsel to the Levensen Enquiry. He is not some establishment snowflake

I was responding to a comment that said that the government had made the decision so we have to trust its in the national interest.
---

Governments will always hold the upper hand, there’s no such thing as open justice, haven’t you ever heard of collusion, especially where terrorists are concerned.

I mean, there is such a thing as open justice. But OK.

 

[stunrw]

Governments will always hold the upper hand, there’s no such thing as open justice, haven’t you ever heard of collusion, especially where terrorists are concerned.

OK.

Last week a security officer was sent down by a UK judge for offences committed in Germany against the UK embassy.

BND and UK Security services working in total partnership. 90% of the evidence couldn't be seen or heard in open court. He still got a lengthy term

In any democratic country there are things nobody other than those with the appropriate vetting don't need to know.

 

[Lazarus]

So dangerous its safer to leave her free? Make it make sense

She’s not free though, is she? She’s stuck in a camp in Syria and can’t come back. IMO, the longer she’s there I think the more the government can say she’s probably been radicalised further and presents a bigger risk. Government Legal Department lawyers must be pretty sure of themselves if they’re prepared to keep going with this.