The European court of human rights has questioned the UK government over its 2019 decision to remove Shamima Begum’s British citizenship.

Lawyers in Europe have asked how Begum’s treatment complies with the UK’s responsibilities to victims of trafficking.

The intervention has encouraged Begum’s lawyers and fuelled Conservative and Reform accusations of meddling by foreign judges and their calls to leave European human rights treaty.

In 2015, as a 15-year-old schoolgirl, Begum left her east London home and travelled with two friends to live under territory held by Islamic State (IS). She was “married off” to an IS fighter with whom she had three children, all of whom died in infancy.

In 2019, the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, revoked her citizenship on grounds of national security, in a decision upheld in the court of appeal last year and backed by the current government.

Campaigners and Begum’s lawyers argue she was the victim of child trafficking. Begum, now 26, remains stateless in a Syrian refugee camp.

A document published by the European court this month confirms that Begum is challenging Javid’s decision under article 4 of the European convention on human rights – a prohibition of slavery and forced labour.

The case was lodged in December 2024, after she was denied the chance to challenge the removal of her British citizenship at the UK’s supreme court.

Among four questions posed by judges in Strasbourg to the Home Office, they asked: “Did the secretary of state have a positive obligation, by virtue of article 4 of the convention, to consider whether the applicant had been a victim of trafficking and whether any duties or obligations to her flowed from that fact, before deciding to deprive her of her citizenship?”

Birnberg Peirce Solicitors, which is representing Begum, said the court’s communication “presents an unprecedented opportunity” for the UK and Begum to “grapple with the significant considerations raised in her case and ignored, sidestepped or violated up to now by previous UK administrations”.

One of the lawyers, Gareth Peirce, said: “It is impossible to dispute that a 15-year-old British child was in 2014-15 lured, encouraged and deceived for the purposes of sexual exploitation to leave home and travel to [IS-controlled] territory for the known purpose of being given, as a child, to an [IS] fighter to propagate children for the Islamic State.”

She added: “It is equally impossible not to acknowledge the catalogue of failures to protect a child known for weeks beforehand to be at high risk when a close friend had disappeared to Syria in an identical way and via an identical route.

“It has already been long conceded that the then home secretary, Sajid Javid, who took the precipitous decision in 2019 very publicly to deprive Ms Begum of citizenship, had failed entirely to consider the issues of grooming and trafficking of a school child in London and of the state’s consequent duties.”

Pierce said the challenge came as the current government had made protections for victims of grooming and trafficking a national priority.

A Home Office spokesperson said any decision made to protect national security would be robustly defended. They added: “The government will always protect the UK and its citizens. That is why Shamima Begum – who posed a national security threat – had her British citizenship revoked and is unable to return to the UK.”

The shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, said Begum had “no place” in the UK because of her support for violent extremists. In a post on X, he wrote: “It is deeply concerning the European Court of Human Rights is now looking at using the ECHR to make the UK take her back.”

Also on X, Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, wrote: “ECHR can jog on….none of their business …just another reason why we must leave this foreign court.”

An incredible self-own

In 1936, John Scott, son of the late Guardian owner and legendary editor CP Scott, did something unheard of for a media heir: he gave up his stake for the greater good.

After inheriting the newspaper, Scott renounced all financial benefit – bar his salary – in the Guardian (worth £1m at the time and around £62m today) and passed ownership over to the newly formed Scott Trust. The Trust would evolve to have one key mission: to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity.

That means the Guardian can’t be bought. Not by private equity, not by a conglomerate, and definitely not by a billionaire looking for a political mouthpiece.

Our independence means we can say what we want, report on who we want, challenge who we want, and stand up at a time when others are sitting down.

But this unique model also means we depend on readers like you from Nigeria to help fund our work. If you would rather the news you read was the result of decisions made by journalists and editors, not shareholders or ultra-wealthy tech bros, then, well, you know what to do: