Nadia Ragozhina
Live reporter

Thanks for joining us as we brought you the Court of Appeal's verdict, and all reaction and analysis following.

We are closing this live page but you can stay up to date on the story here.

If you want to dig deeper into Shamima Begum's story, the BBC's award-winning podcast 'I'm Not a Monster' is a good place to start.

This live page was edited by me, and written by Dominic Casciani, Thomas Mackintosh and Jake Lapham.

Could be argued Begum was author of her own misfortune - judgepublished at 11:58 Greenwich Mean Time 23 February

11:58 GMT 23 February

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

As we prepare to close this page, here's a reminder that earlier all the three judges dismissed Begum's arguments for appeal.

They said there had been “no material shortcoming” on the part of Sajid Javid, the then-Home Secretary, who knew in 2019 Shamima Begum might have been trafficked.

“He was aware of the circumstances of her departure to Syria and the likelihood that she was a child victim of others who wished to exploit her for sexual or extremist reasons,” they said.

Throughout the case, Begum’s lawyers had argued while the government said she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, in practice she would never be allowed into the country and had therefore been left stateless - something which is banned under British and international law.

But, the judges ruled the home secretary was not under a legal obligation to consider that real-world outcome as over-riding.

Sajid Javid had the power to strip her of her nationality and the law said she was entitled to go to Bangladesh.

“Deprivation decisions often have severe consequences,” said judge Dame Sue Carr.

Jake Lapham
Live reporter

Digging a bit deeper into the Court of Appeal judgement now, let's look at the five main arguments lawyers for Shamima Begum made in the appeal against the decision of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SAIC):

• They argued the Home Secretary failed to consider whether Begum was a victim of trafficking
• It was further argued that the concern over whether Begum was a victim of trafficking should have been considered by the Home Secretary when deciding whether depriving her of citizenship was in the public good and proportionate
• Begum's legal team argued the then-Home Secretary failed to consider that she was 'de facto stateless' - meaning that although she had claim to Bangladeshi citizenship, authorities there would have never let her settle there so it was basically useless. (As a reminder, human rights law prevents a government from making someone stateless)
• She was not given procedural fairness because she didn't get to put her argument forward as to why she should keep her citizenship
• Begum's lawyers also argued the home secretary breached the Public Sector Equality Duty, external

Judges outright rejected all but one of these arguments. On procedural fairness, they found that even if Begum had been given a chance to make submissions, "the decision would inevitably have been the same".

Some remarks to bring you from the Home Office following this morning's ruling.

A Home Office spokesperson says: "We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has found in favour of our position in this case.

"Our priority remains maintaining the safety and security of the UK and we will robustly defend any decision made in doing so".

Image source, Getty Images

Let's give you a quick overview and reminder as to the background of Shamima Begum.

She was one of three east London schoolgirls who travelled to Syria in 2015 to support the self-styled Islamic State.

She was 15 years old when she left with her friends Kadiza Sultana and Amira Abase. Kadiza is thought to have died when a house was blown up, and the fate of Amira is unknown.

Begum was born in the UK to parents of Bangladeshi heritage but does not have Bangladeshi citizenship.

Her British citizenship was stripped on national security grounds in 2019 when she was 19 years old, after she was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp. The baby later died of pneumonia. She had two other children, who have also died.

She has since appealed the decision and says she wants to come back to Britain.

Begum lived under IS rule for more than three years. She married a Dutch member of IS, who is currently held in a Kurdish detention centre, and lived in Raqqa - once a stronghold of the so-called caliphate.

Begum has admitted that she joined IS knowing it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. She has also said that she was “ashamed” to have joined the group and regrets it.

Difficult to see where Begum goes from herepublished at 11:22 Greenwich Mean Time 23 February

11:22 GMT 23 February

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

It is very difficult to see where Shamima Begum goes from here given the strength of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

If the judges had split 2-1, it would have been an awful lot easier for her lawyers to argue to the Supreme Court there was a fundamental legal problem that needed wrestling with.

But, they didn’t - they told Begum her case failed on all grounds.

Outside court, her solicitors, Gareth Peirce and Daniel Furner, said they would consider the judgment - but Peirce made clear she believed the case was now beyond the law itself.

Other nations have brought their citizens back from the Syrian war zone in an attempt to make the region safer and to rehabilitate them.

And she said the UK was under a moral duty to do the same.

The full judge from the Court of Appeal has just been posted online, you can read it here, external.

A word of warning: It runs 42 pages and is packed full of dense legalese, so perhaps pour yourself a cup of tea before getting stuck in.

We're going to do just that, and bring you some of the most significant bits in posts to follow.

Some fresh reaction to bring you from Shamima Begum's solicitor Daniel Furner.

In the last few moments, Furner has promised Begum and the government they are "not going to stop fighting until she does get justice and until she is safely back home".

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

In a highly significant decision, the three judges wholly dismissed all of her arguments for appeal.

Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, said it was not for the court to conclude whether Begum had been treated harshly or the author of her own misfortune, but to apply the law.

She and the two other judges said the Home Secretary had been entitled to put national security before concerns that she had been the victim of sexual exploitation and trafficking.

Begum "may well have been influenced and manipulated by others but still have made a calculated decision to travel to Syria and align with Islamic State,” said the judges.

"Voluntariness of travel was not a binary question and she may well have been influenced and manipulated by others but still have made a calculated decision to travel to Syria and align" with IS, said the Judge.

"The assessment of the national security risk was a question evaluation and judgment entrusted by Parliament to the Secretary of State.”

Let's bring you some quick reaction from an executive director of Reprieve - a legal action non-governmental organisation representing Shamima Begum.

Maya Foa says her team are not the lawyers for Begum, but tells BBC News: "I am sure she will be informed.

"And I am sure she will be disappointed by this, but will know this won't be the end of the line as I am assuming there will be an appeal."

This is a massive win for the governmentpublished at 10:37 Greenwich Mean Time 23 February

10:37 GMT 23 February

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

There are two critical questions in Begum’s case: was she a victim of trafficking and sexual exploitation and, secondly, is the sunglasses-wearing young mother, who lost all three of her children, a threat to the nation?

The Court of Appeal judgement says that the home secretary was entitled to reach the decision that she was dangerous - even if there had been evidence of trafficking.

If that evidence existed, it concerned events four years before she was, as an adult, assessed for terrorist intent.

The upshot is that James Cleverly, the current home secretary, has dodged a potentially massive legal crisis in the court finding that he has to balance national security considerations with questions of whether someone is a victim.

This may not be the end of it.

It seems very likely that Begum’s side will ask the Supreme Court to get involved. And that could take another year - and become a whole new problem for the next government.

In her ruling, the chief justice has said it could be argued the decision in Begum's case is "harsh" and it could be argued Begum is "the author of her own misfortune".

"But it is not for this court to agree, or disagree with either point of view," she says.

"Our only task is to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful. We have concluded it was not, and the appeal is dismissed."

The judges have just left and the broadcast from the Court of Appeal has just finished.

Stay with as we analyse the judgement and bring you fresh reaction.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

The Court of Appeal rules that Shamima Begum was lawfully deprived of her British citizenship.

The ruling means she remains in Syria with no chance of return to the UK.

Dame Sue Carr continues to outline the case as to why the home secretary, at the time, felt the need to strip Shamima Begum of her British citizenship.

She notes the challenge Begum lost at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) last year and this is the role of the Court of Appeal to see if that judgement was lawful.

The judge continues to go through the reasons for the challenge to appeal the decision.

The Lady Chief Justice takes her seat and starts to go through a short summary of their oral judgement.

Dame Sue Carr goes through Shamima Begum's background in London and says she travelled to Syria via Turkey to join IS.

"She married an Isil fighter soon after arriving, she went onto have three children, sadly none of whom survived," Dame Sue says.

She continues to outline the background of the case.

The Court of Appeal judges have just entered the courtroom and taken their seats.

The latest chapter in this five-year long legal battle is about to begin.

Standby as we bring you the verdict and all the analysis.

You can also watch the proceedings live by pressing Play at the top of the live page.

If you're just joining us, let's give you a quick overview about the imminent judgement from the Court of Appeal.

• Shamima Begum is set to find out if she has won an appeal against the removal of her British citizenship.
• You may remember, the east London schoolgirl travelled to Syria in 2015 to join Islamic State at the age of 15.
• Her citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found in a refugee camp in 2019.
• Last year, Begum, now 24, lost a challenge against the decision at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
• Her lawyers brought a bid to overturn that decision at the Court of Appeal, with the Home Office opposing the challenge.

What are the options for the loser today?published at 09:54 Greenwich Mean Time 23 February

09:54 GMT 23 February

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

When the Court of Appeal rules, it’s usually the end of a matter.

Its role is to review how the lower court took a decision and whether it properly applied the law to the evidence and questions.

So, for Shamima Begum, a core question for the Court of Appeal is whether lower court correctly decided the Home Secretary had acted reasonably, and within his powers, when he deprived her of citizenship.

Sometimes, the Court of Appeal exposes a genuinely thorny new legal problem - usually something that’s never come up before.

That’s where the Supreme Court comes in.

It looks at cases which need to clarify what the law means - so the loser today would have to show there’s a “point of law of general public importance” which needs to be solved.

In the Begum case it could be, speaking hypothetically, a question about how to balance national security and protections for victims of sexual trafficking.

What about the European Court of Human Rights? It only gets involved in a British case very rarely and on very specific grounds.

Dominic Casciani
Home and legal correspondent

Quite simply, she is accused of being a threat to the nation because she supported a proscribed terrorist organisation - the self-styled Islamic State group that tried to take control of Iraq and Syria.

The Home Secretary concluded that in 2019 she was still aligned to the group and had only sought to leave Syria because its barbaric regime was collapsing.

Any detailed evidence against Begum remains secret. It was heard behind closed doors. That’s because the law allows the government to protect how the UK’s security services gather intelligence, such as from informants or by intercepting communications on phones.