[Begum’s] criminality is very relevant … We have a wide array of legislative power in this country, many specifically designed to deal with returning fighters and sympathisers. The problem seems to be that [Javid] believed there was insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.

The alternative was to deprive her of citizenship, meaning that the only way she can appeal against this decision is via the special immigration appeals commission, which is largely based on closed evidence, and which she will not have any access to (and neither will her lawyers). It seems that it is an easy way out for the home secretary without having to prove her criminality in a court of law.

One problem with the entire policy ... is that it is inherently discriminatory and racist in how it is applied. If you have two British citizens, one white English and born to white English parents, and one like Shamima Begum, who was born in the UK and has no links to Bangladesh apart from her parental heritage, the white English person cannot be deprived of their citizenship – on the basis that they do not have another nationality to fall back on.

In the legacy of this policy, it is unlikely that any cases have involved a white English person. It can only be used against children of immigrant parents. There is one case – Jack Letts, who has been accused of being involved with Isis in Syria and has dual Canadian-British citizenship. He has not been deprived of his statehood yet.

At the moment Begum is living in a refugee camp in a war zone in Syria with no consular access to the Bangladeshi authorities and no ability at all to evidence her nationality or benefit from it. For all intents and purposes she is stateless at the moment.