The High Court of England and Wales has upheld a decision to revoke the citizenship of a British citizen who joined the Islamic State.
Mr Justice Pepperall ruled that the decision of the former Home Secretary, Amber Rudd to deprive 22-year-old Ashraf Mahmud Islam of his British nationality was lawful.
In 2015, an 18-year-old Ashraf, travelled to Syria from Bangladesh, where he was studying A-level law at a British educational establishment, to join terrorist group ISIL. He has since been captured and is being held in a Kurdish-run military prison where he faces the death penalty.
By a letter dated 17 July 2017, the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd informed Ashraf that she intended to deprive him of his British citizenship pursuant to section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981. The decision was made on the basis that his return to the UK would present a risk to the national security of the United Kingdom and it would be conducive to the public good to do so. It was also believed that he had dual British/Bangladeshi citizenship and as such the revocation of his British citizenship would not make him stateless pursuant to section 40(4) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
The case was brought to the High Court by Ashraf’s father, Abdullah Islam, who argued that Ashraf does not have a Bangladeshi passport and could face the same pushback from the Bangladeshi government as 19-year-old jihadi bride Shamima Begum. The Bangladeshi government responded to the revocation of her British citizenship in February 2019 by stating that she did not hold and was not entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship and that she would not be allowed to enter the country.
Mr Islam sought to judicially review the Home Secretary’s decision to deprive Ashraf of his British citizenship and the alleged failure to implement a “proper policy” in relation to depriving British nationals of citizenship when they are overseas and at risk of treatment in breach of their human rights. He argued that the Government was obliged to repatriate his son to face justice in the UK, and that the decision to deprive Ashraf of his British citizenship discriminated against dual nationals.
However, Mr Justice Pepperall ruled that the case had “no merit” and refused permission for the judicial review to proceed.
Addressing the issue of whether the Home Secretary is under any legal duty to make arrangements to repatriate Ashraf, he stated:
“However repugnant [Ashraf’s] possible fate might be to British values, any British citizen who commits serious crimes abroad is subject to local justice and cannot simply demand that the British government extricates him from a situation of his own making in order that he can face the more palatable prospect of justice in a British court”.
Addressing the Home Secretary’s decision to deprive Ashraf of his British citizenship, Mr Justice Pepperall clarified that Ashraf had a right to appeal the decision to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
The Court refused to adjudicate on whether the decision by the Home Secretary rendered Ashraf stateless. Mr Islam argued that his son does not have a Bangladeshi passport and would be refused entry into Bangladesh if he attempted to return to the country. In response, Mr Justice Pepperall stated that there was no evidence before him as to the attitude of the Bangladeshi authorities towards Ashraf.
He further added that this issue was not one for the High Court, stating that “if Ashraf has been rendered stateless, then that is a proper ground of appeal against the deprivation decision that can be considered by SIAC”.
Mr Islam also argued that the deprivation decision discriminates against dual nationals and is therefore incompatible with articles 8 & 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("ECHR").
However, Mr Justice Pepperall ruled that the discrimination against dual-nationals is “plainly justifiable” in order for the Government to comply with the requirement not to make a person stateless. He added, that “in any event, being a dual national is not, of itself, a protected characteristic”.
Click here for the decision in full.