Shamima Begum said her "whole world fell apart" when she lost the first stage of her appeal against losing her British citizenship.

Appearing for the first time without her black burka, in line with deradicalisation efforts in Roj, a camp managed by Western-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, 'Isil bride' runaway Begum told ABC News: "I kind of saw it coming because I did my research.I thought it would be a bit different because I had not done anything wrong before I came to Isis."

The Bethnal Green schoolgirl left the UK when she was 15 with two other friends, marrying a Dutch fighter with whom she had three children while living under the rule of the terror group.

The 20-year-old was found, nine months pregnant, in a Syrian refugee camp in February last year - a re-emergence that prompted the then Home Secretary to strip her of her citizenship.

Asked about her previous comments to the Times where she appeared unrepentant after being found in Al-Hawl camp after fleeing the village of Baghuz, she said she was "afraid for my life".

Wearing a maroon head scarf, jeans and a diamante nose stud, she said: "I had just come into the camp. I had just given birth. I was hearing all these stories about women threatening other women, you know, folk uncovering their faces or speaking to men or doing interviews, or anything like that.

"I just was afraid for my life."

Ms Begum’s lawyers have argued the decision to strip her of citizenship was unlawful as it rendered her stateless. Such a decision is lawful only if an individual is entitled to citizenship of another country.

Last year, Ms Begum took legal action against the Home Office at the High Court and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), a specialist tribunal which hears challenges to decisions to remove someone's British citizenship on national security grounds.

The tribunal, led by SIAC president Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing, found in a judgment earlier this month the decision by Sajid Javid “did not make her stateless”.

It also concluded the move did not breach her human rights by exposing her to a risk of torture or death.

On the final preliminary ground for appeal - that Ms Begum was unable to have a fair and effective appeal outside the UK - the judgment said: “We accept that Ms Begum cannot have an effective appeal in the current circumstances but it doesn’t follow that her appeal succeeds.”

Ms Begum now has the opportunity to appeal against the decision and, if that fails, the court will be asked to consider further issues, such as national security concerns.