Shamima Begum

[Chris in London]

Think we’re on the same page.

I didn’t think of not punishing her as leaving her in Syria.

Whatever laws she broke in Syria is a matter for the Syrians. Sge's not in a camp in Syria as punishment for breaking UK law. It's not justice for her not to be punished for breaking British laws.

She broke our laws, she should do time in our jail.

 

[Chris B]

There are some strange views on here.

Some want an offence committed when the criminal was still a child punished in the same way as you would punish an adult.

Some want a criminal punished for a crime there is no evidence she ever committed.

Some don't want her punished at all.

And at least one isn’t that concerned with punishment because a trial would probably be impossible, but don’t want known associates of terrorists allowed into the country because it’s clearly a risk that can’t be mitigated.

 

[Chris in London]

And at least one isn’t that concerned with punishment because a trial would probably be impossible, but don’t want known associates of terrorists allowed into the country because it’s clearly a risk that can’t be mitigated.

Why is a trial impossible? She left the UK - allegedly - to join a terrorist organisation. There is ample evidence to allow a jury to be satisfied of her guilt.

She broke our law. She should be punished, if convicted, like everyone else.

 

[Chris B]

Why is a trial impossible? She left the UK - allegedly - to join a terrorist organisation. There is ample evidence to allow a jury to be satisfied of her guilt.

She broke our law. She should be punished, if convicted, like everyone else.

Collecting evidence would be impossible. The alleged crimes took place in a chaotic war zone hundreds of miles away. And to cap that, all women were required to wear face coverings while outside. It is hard to imagine a court in London managing to arrange a set of reliable eye witnesses isn’t it?

Additionally, there’s the issue of the latest legislation coming into effect after she joined ISIS, which limits the legal options in the UK.

If you let her into the UK she would be here as a free citizen with no possibility of any legal action being taken against her.

 

[Chris in London]

Collecting evidence would be impossible. The alleged crimes took place in a chaotic war zone hundreds of miles away. And to cap that, all women were required to wear face coverings while outside. It is hard to imagine a court in London managing to arrange a set of reliable eye witnesses isn’t it?

Additionally, there’s the issue of the latest legislation coming into effect after she joined ISIS, which limits the legal options in the UK.

If you let her into the UK she would be here as a free citizen with no possibility of any legal action being taken against her.

The alleged crime is a crime committed by her in the UK contrary to UK law, namely joining a terrorist organisation. When she left the UK to join ISIS it was an offence to join a terrorist organisation. Three of them left together. Two of them are dead. The third committed an offence under our law which it would be relatively straightforward to prove.

Whatever other crimes she committed in Syria, if any, would be very hard to prove, and with some notable exceptions we wouldn't have jurisdiction over them anyway. We do have jurisdiction to try offences under UK law committed in the UK by a British citizen.

Your last sentence, by the way, is just wrong.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

There are some strange views on here.

Some want an offence committed when the criminal was still a child punished in the same way as you would punish an adult.

Some want a criminal punished for a crime there is no evidence she ever committed.

Some don't want her punished at all.

I love it when you use the word ‘punish’.

 

[Chris B]

The alleged crime is a crime committed by her in the UK contrary to UK law, namely joining a terrorist organisation. When she left the UK to join ISIS it was an offence to join a terrorist organisation. Three of them left together. Two of them are dead. The third committed an offence under our law which it would be relatively straightforward to prove.

Whatever other crimes she committed in Syria, if any, would be very hard to prove, and with some notable exceptions we wouldn't have jurisdiction over them anyway. We do have jurisdiction to try offences under UK law committed in the UK by a British citizen.

Your last sentence, by the way, is just wrong.

I don’t think that was a crime at the time, although it is now. I could be wrong but I seem to remember that from some of the reporting.

 

[Chris in London]

I don’t think that was a crime at the time, although it is now. I could be wrong but I seem to remember that from some of the reporting.

No, it was.

The Terrorism Act of 2000 gave the Secretary of State permission to proscribe a terrorist organisation so that membership of it was in itself a crime.

Here is a link to the current list of banned organisations. It was first published in 2013.

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

List of terrorist groups or organisations banned under UK law, and details of proscription criteria.

www.gov.uk

Each entry in the list shows the date that organisation was added to it, making membership a crime. ISIS was added to the list in 2014.

Begum travelled to Syria in February 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

 

[Chris in London]

I love it when you use the word ‘punish’.

I like most things that involve a pun.

 

[Chris B]

No, it was.

The Terrorism Act of 2000 gave the Secretary of State permission to proscribe a terrorist organisation so that membership of it was in itself a crime.

Here is a link to the current list of banned organisations. It was first published in 2013.

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations

List of terrorist groups or organisations banned under UK law, and details of proscription criteria.

www.gov.uk

Each entry in the list shows the date that organisation was added to it, making membership a crime. ISIS was added to the list in 2014.

Begum travelled to Syria in February 2015. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

It was actually the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 I was thinking of. I think the problem with the legislation you’ve highlighted is proving membership of a group, especially when that happened in Syria. She may have had online exchanges with people in this country but her legal team would argue that didn’t constitute membership of ISIS. Obvs, the 2019 Act couldn’t be retrospectively applied to Begum.

The below is from the HoC library:

In addition to using TEOs, the Government has said repeatedly that it would seek to prosecute anyone who has travelled abroad to engage in terrorism related activity. There are a number of terrorist offences that might be relevant, including belonging to a proscribed organisation, or attendance at a place used for terrorism training. However, there may be difficulties in obtaining evidence of conduct that has taken place abroad, in territory without a functioning criminal justice system that UK authorities could cooperate with.

The Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 introduced a new offence of “entering or remaining in a designated area” aimed at addressing this difficulty. The new offence would apply to those simply travelling to certain designated parts of the world, without the need to provide evidence of terrorism-related activity whilst there.