QUESTIONS TO GUIDE VIEWEING - ANSWERS 1. How does the Shamima Begum case demonstrate that the UK government has a free hand in depriving its citizens of their citizenship, and why is this a dangerous development according to Amanda Weston? It shows that the UK government can strip the citizenship of even the most vulnerable and powerless, for reasons that may not be revealed and without judicial oversight prior or subsequently to the decision. Shamima Begum became an ISIS bride when she was 15, and she was detained in a camp in Syria when the UK government stripped her of her citizenship. Her citizenship was stripped for national security reasons, which were not made public, nor shared with her or her representatives. This shows that the government can deprive a UK citizen of their nationality if there is a claim that it protects national security, even without disclosing valid reasons. The fact that Shamima Begum was located abroad when she was stripped of her citizenship and was therefore unable to appeal the decision in a fair manner, also showcases that these very impactful decisions are not made on fair and just grounds. 2. According to Amanda Weston, the decision to reject Begum’s appeal and strip her of her British citizenship, was an inevitable consequence of the Parliament’s failure to grapple with the consequences of such draconian decisions taken against British citizens who reside outside the UK. What two key points were discussed that showcase this failure and its consequences? i. The respective roles of the Parliament and the Courts; Parliament enacts legislation, the Courts interpret and apply it. Parliament and the Courts have distinct constitutional roles, and different responsibilities. This aspect of the fundamental separation of powers means that it is for the Parliament to scrutinize legislative changes, confront foreseeable consequences and make adequate provision for them. It is a fundamental principle that Parliament is presumed to legislate with its eyes open, cognizant to the implications of its legislation. Another principle is that Parliament is presumed to legislate based on the principles of natural justice, or procedural fairness. The decision in the Begum case therefore shows a failure of the respective roles of the Parliament and the Courts. ii. The stripping of a person’s citizenship, resulting in the severance of their relationship to the state, is an act that violates their right to have rights. The consequence of this is that the most fundamental rights become meaningless without a state in which and by which those rights can be enforced. The government’s decision to reject Begum’s appeal therefore showcases a failure to protect her right to have rights. 3. Name two ways in which the burden to show the necessity of the very extreme measure of citizenship stripping could have been put on the State according to Amanda Weston. Two of the following: • • • • Proper consideration of the impact of out-of-country appeals. Establishing grounds on which a court may be satisfied that an effective right of appeal may be displaced. Place obligations on the decision maker to ensure that on the date of decision an appeal could be effectively mounted. Parliament could have identified express circumstances in which effective access to justice could only be denied in the most extreme of cases, proportionate to the identified risk. 4. What are the common circumstances in which expatriates find themselves when wanting to appeal the decision that strips them of their citizenship, and why do these circumstances prevent these people from having a fair appeal? • There might be a lack of reliable forms of communication, meaning that they do not have access to their lawyer or other representatives. • They might live in insecure environments where a person who wishes to speak frankly about events and circumstances material to their appeals, may not be safe to do so. Speaking out about the brutality of a regime or an organization with which they have been associated, giving rise to their deprivation of citizenship, would be unsafe to do when residing in that country, or in an environment where they are not protected. • They might also have language, cognitive, discriminatory, social, gender or trauma related impediments to effective access to justice, in the same way that they occur in the undeprived population of litigants.