Shamima Begum

[transam]

there should be a campaign some thing similar to what happened in some parts of canada ?

Sponsor a migrant

all those in favour can sign up and than cough up a decent amount on a monthly basis


sorted

any one with a spare room , holiday home etc could turn it over

tis the decent thing to do imo

 

[motorbiking]

Was she a dual national? As I understand it she didn't hold any other citizenship but was apparently eligible to have another.

She was entitled to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and there was no mechanism under Bangladeshi law to refuse her at the time.
SIAC confirmed she had Bangladeshi citizenship.

1. Statelessness: Ms Begum lost before the Commission on this as a preliminary issue, and it was not before the Supreme Court.
2. No effective appeal against deprivation: Ms Begum lost on this as a preliminary issue before the Commission, brought a judicial review and lost in the Divisional Court. She appealed and lost before the Supreme Court.
3. Breach of extraterritorial human rights policy: Ms Begum lost on this as a preliminary issue before the Commission, brought a judicial review and won in the Divisional Court. The Secretary of State appealed to the Supreme Court, where Ms Begum lost.
4. Appeal against refusal of leave to enter: Ms Begum lost before the Commission and won before the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed and Ms Begum lost before the Supreme Court.
5. Judicial review of refusal of leave to enter: Ms Begum lost in the High Administrative Court and won before the Court of Appeal. The Secretary of State appealed and Ms Begum lost before the Supreme Court.

At the point her British Citizenship was removed, Bangladesh had no ability to deny her. Boxed ticked.

 

[motorbiking]

.

 

[Notch7]

there should be a campaign some thing similar to what happened in some parts of canada ?

Sponsor a migrant

all those in favour can sign up and than cough up a decent amount on a monthly basis


sorted

any one with a spare room , holiday home etc could turn it over

tis the decent thing to do imo

how many shall I put you down for -2 dozen

 

[motorbiking]

The very latest on her application posted yesterday
http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/Shamima Begum, C8, C10, C11 & D4 29.11.21.pdf

 

[mattylad]

If I can surmise that report.
1) NO!

 

[johnny2007]

Some of my replies to Himmy deleted at his request as usual.
It was a one word reply, I let you guess what it is.
The clue is...
Starts with B and has two Ls, ends in X...

 

[motorbiking]

If I can surmise that report.
1) NO!

She must proceed with the elements of her appeal that she intends to bring, with a hearing set for November 2022.

 

[AngleEyes]

At the point her British Citizenship was removed, Bangladesh had no ability to deny her. Boxed ticked.

UK has no jurisdiction over Bangladesh citizenship allocation. UK's actions was based on UK's interpretation of Bangladesh's rules, and motivated by media stories.
It's total abdication of responsibility by UK, morally repugnant and internationally irresponsible.
It would be like a council evicting someone on the basis that they are entitled to accommodation by an under-funded charity.
Or denying children free school dinners on the basis that they are entitled to be fed by an under-funded food bank.
Or a fire brigade refusing to attend a fire because the fire is only just inside the brigade's area, and there is a nearer station.

You can't base decisions on the availability of someone else's charity.

 

[AngleEyes]

The very latest on her application posted yesterday
http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/Shamima Begum, C8, C10, C11 & D4 29.11.21.pdf

She must proceed with the elements of her appeal that she intends to bring, with a hearing set for November 2022.

Two issues jump out from that document:
1. The rulings are UK only rulings and take no account of UK's respect and observance of international obligations.
2. The basis for the exclusion on National Security grounds have not been disclosed to anyone, therefore that judgement cannot be challenged.
If one does not know the grounds for a decision, how can one legitimately challenge it?

I wish to object.
On what grounds?
I don't know because I don't know the grounds for the original decision.
It's nonsense.

Therefore the judge has more or less made it impossible to continue with an appeal because Shamima must appeal on all grounds, including the decision on National Security grounds, because those grounds have not been disclosed, and remain secret.

It's like a typical RWR shouting b***x all the time, with no counter argument presented.

 

[transam]

Disclosing certain info would or could put others at risk

secret agents and informers

 

[AngleEyes]

Disclosing certain info would or could put others at risk

secret agents and informers

Even the judge has not seen the National Security grounds.

I meant the submissions and connected material that were placed before the Secretary of State when the deprivation decisions were made. This material remains in CLOSED and I must re-emphasise that I have not seen it.
from motorbiking's link.
​

Yet he supported UK's decision.

​

 

[transam]

Even the judge has not seen the National Security grounds.

I meant the submissions and connected material that were placed before the Secretary of State when the deprivation decisions were made. This material remains in CLOSED and I must re-emphasise that I have not seen it.
from motorbiking's link.
​

Yet he supported UK's decision.

​

its top secret for the home office only

judge probably saw a redacted version

official secrets act and all that caper

 

[AngleEyes]

its top secret for the home office only

judge probably saw a redacted version

official secrets act and all that caper

Evidently you don't know what 'redacted' means.


Something like this perhaps:

UK government makes a decision, then refuses to allow even judges, who are judging appeals, to see the grounds for the UK's decision.
What kind of judgment is that?

 

[motorbiking]

Two issues jump out from that document:
1. The rulings are UK only rulings and take no account of UK's respect and observance of international obligations.
2. The basis for the exclusion on National Security grounds have not been disclosed to anyone, therefore that judgement cannot be challenged.
If one does not know the grounds for a decision, how can one legitimately challenge it?

I wish to object.
On what grounds?
I don't know because I don't know the grounds for the original decision.
It's nonsense.

Therefore the judge has more or less made it impossible to continue with an appeal because Shamima must appeal on all grounds, including the decision on National Security grounds, because those grounds have not been disclosed, and remain secret.

It's like a typical RWR shouting b***x all the time, with no counter argument presented.

Thats not really what the hearing was about. The supreme court deferred the appeals until she was able to make representation. It went back to the SIAC appeal. The home office argued an all or nothing appeal and must be stayed until all was possible which was denied. The appellant was invited to appeal on any grounds they could, but not those of the national security considerations, which are closed. They have basically said - tell us what you want to do next?

I know you have a view that the UK judiciary have acted politically, but if you read through the mountains of transcript on this, SB has had excellent representation and consideration. It's fair to say that the SIAC appeal judge was pretty frustrated (as commented in the transcript) by the appellant's approach and still granted her an audience.

There are plenty of injustices in our system (e.g. magistrates courts), but here I can't see it.