Background on Smith
In 2015, Irish national, Lisa Smith traveled to Syria after terrorist leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called on Muslims to travel to that country. Mr Justice Hunt, delivering verdict against Smith, said that she went to Syria with her "eyes wide open" having watched videos of ISIS atrocities and having taken part in online discussions about ISIS with jihadis from Germany, Australia, America and parts of the Middle East.
Smith claims she and her fellow ISIS members lived normal lives! There was nothing normal about a family being dragged from their homes, beheaded, raped, sold into slavery or forced to convert to Islam so Smith could play happy housewife for the caliphate. She and her new ‘hubby’, assumed the lives of their victims by looting or plundering their homes, beds, chairs, cars, TVs or anything else of value or of use to them. As repulsive a person Smith is, we must face up to the fact, as do other nations, that one of our own left our shores to participate in genocide and crimes against humanity only to return to their native homes as war criminals. Smith embraced ISIS scorched earth genocidal atrocities so much that she even warned her own family to convert to Islam before it was too late. But now she wants to visit them; ISIS failed - no harm done and the least said the better…WTF??
As a nation, we have a responsibility to the victims of war crimes when Irish nationals are responsible. Section 9(3) of the International Criminal Court Act 2006 made it possible for an Irish citizen to be tried in an Irish Court rather than at the International Crimninal Court at the Hague (see article[1]). Section 8 involves offences ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (in Smith’s case, at minimum looting or providing a supporting role) committed anywhere in the world. Section 12(1) states that:
Unfortunately, the Irish prosecution services failed the victims of ISIS by taking a more passive and lenient path to prosecution. This was against the expressed wishes of the victims of ISIS who had called on nations not to relabel genocide and war crimes as lesser offences. Severity of the sentence was not so much the issue but the descriptive accuracy of the criminal charges were.
Exclusion Order
On 7th May 2021 Smith successfully appealed a British Home Office-issued exclusion order against her on the grounds of public security. Smith had travelled to Syria to join ISIS/Daesh. But after its defeat she was brought back to Ireland on humanitarian grounds for the welfare of her daughter. Smith agrees with the principle that the British may deny individuals entry into the UK in the interests of public safety. However, Smith was afforded the oppurtunity to apply for British citizenship: “She is therefore entitled to be registered as a British citizen if she applies for registration.”[2] The SoS suggested that she would not have issued an exclusion order against a British citizen.[3] Smith has rejected British citizenship. Smith’s father is an Irish citizen born in Belfast ‘without any restriction on his period of residence’. The Judges asserted that “her father was a dual citizen –he was British whether he wanted to be or not and did not renounce it.” Many Irish citizens in the 6 counties do not recognise British citizenship whether the British like it or not.
Nevertheless, the exclusion order was incorrectly issued under regulation 23(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, 2016 SI No 1052 (‘the EEA Regulations’). The Decision was certified under regulation 38(2)(a) of the EEA Regulations. Confusingly, Smith seems to argue dual citizenship (probably more an error on her lawyers part):
All countries have a right to exclude non-nationals. Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives the Secretary of State power to deprive a person of British citizenship if satisfied that would be conducive to the public good and satisfied that deprivation will not make that person stateless (section 40(4)). Under international law a person cannot be made stateless through loss of citizenship unless the person holds dual citizenship to another country. Had Smith opted to register as a British citizen then she likely would then have been deprived her of it. For example, Shamima Begum had dual citizenship, the UK and Bangladesh. Now she only has her Bangladesh citizenship. The UK revoked her British citizenship on account that her parents were born in Bangladesh. The reverse is true in Smith’s case - her father was born and lives in Belfast and he is an Irish citizen as is she. Neither appear to wish to identify as British as is their right.
The EU & the European Economic Area are Irrelevant
In 1922, the British and Irish authorities agreed to a Common Travel Area (CTA) between the UK and Ireland that includes more than the basic right to travel freely between both countries. For example, under Section 32 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007 Irish citizens with criminal records are treated in similar terms as UK citizens: Section 32 “provides as follows: “foreign criminal” means a person–(a) who is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.” The recent Court also acknowlegded that “the deportation of Irish nationals is significantly more restrictive than the approach she takes to the deportation of other foreign national prisoners.”[6] Even in proceedings involving the NI Protocol[7] it was observed that the Protocol safeguards “the preservation of the UK/Ireland Common Travel Area (“CTA”), a post – partition arrangement of longstanding,” Hence, the CTA is separate from and not dependant upon EU membership therefore arguments around the EEA are void ab intitio.
However, exclusion orders are nothing new as they could be issued against individuals from either jurisdiction. For example, numerous exclusion orders were issued during Operation Banner when suspected members of the Republican Movement were banned from travelling to Great Britain from either the north or south of Ireland. International law and treaties since 1922 created complications for exclusion orders, for example, Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence....). This means that where either government might like to expel a parent, the rights of other family members, especially children, must be considered.
Anti-Irish Bias of Judges
The Judges in Smith’s case seem to be prejudiced by Smith’s refusal to identify as British and:
Conclusion
Nothing redeems Smith or ISIS for the atrocities they committed or supported in Syria. The Brits are not unreasonable for wishing to exclude her from the UK but their arguments for excluding her from the 6 counties are fundamentally flawed. The British Court handling of Smith’s case reveals the underlying prejudice and bias the British judges have for Ireland and the Irish. They show no sensitivity or respect for the indigenious Irish living in the occupied 6 counties. Or their right to identify as Irish. Their treatment of Smith is an exercise in contempt for the GFA and any idea of the 6 counties being a ‘shared space. The judges seem to have arrived at their decision against Smith primarily because she did not identify as British, she did not take up the suggestion that she register as British and she would not pledge any oath of allegiance to the crown. None of these are proper considerations but tend to be more oppresive and coercive to any Irish person who identifies as Irish and not British.
[1] Lisa Smith: Irish ISIS War Criminal.
[2] Secretary of State for the Home Department v Lisa Smith [2021] NIQB 79, at para 15.
[3] ibid, para 50.
[4] UK government can impose entry ban on Lisa Smith, court rules, Irish Examiner, 5 Apr, 2023 .
[5] Caoimhe Ní Chuinneagain [2021] NIQB 79, at paras 21 &27.
[6] ibid, para 96.
[7] James Hugh Allister, Benyamin Naeem Habib, Steve Aiken, the Rt Hon. Arlene Isobel Foster, Baroness Catharine Hoey of Lylehill and Rathlin and William David, the Rt Hon. Baron Trimble of lisnagarvey v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. And the case of Clifford Peeples v (1) The Prime Minister (2) Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (3) Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2022] NICA 15m at at para. 324.
[8] Barristers win case on declaration to queen.
In 2015, Irish national, Lisa Smith traveled to Syria after terrorist leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi called on Muslims to travel to that country. Mr Justice Hunt, delivering verdict against Smith, said that she went to Syria with her "eyes wide open" having watched videos of ISIS atrocities and having taken part in online discussions about ISIS with jihadis from Germany, Australia, America and parts of the Middle East.
Smith claims she and her fellow ISIS members lived normal lives! There was nothing normal about a family being dragged from their homes, beheaded, raped, sold into slavery or forced to convert to Islam so Smith could play happy housewife for the caliphate. She and her new ‘hubby’, assumed the lives of their victims by looting or plundering their homes, beds, chairs, cars, TVs or anything else of value or of use to them. As repulsive a person Smith is, we must face up to the fact, as do other nations, that one of our own left our shores to participate in genocide and crimes against humanity only to return to their native homes as war criminals. Smith embraced ISIS scorched earth genocidal atrocities so much that she even warned her own family to convert to Islam before it was too late. But now she wants to visit them; ISIS failed - no harm done and the least said the better…WTF??
As a nation, we have a responsibility to the victims of war crimes when Irish nationals are responsible. Section 9(3) of the International Criminal Court Act 2006 made it possible for an Irish citizen to be tried in an Irish Court rather than at the International Crimninal Court at the Hague (see article[1]). Section 8 involves offences ancillary to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (in Smith’s case, at minimum looting or providing a supporting role) committed anywhere in the world. Section 12(1) states that:
An Irish national who does an act outside the State that, if done within it, would constitute an ICC offence or an offence under section 11(1) is guilty of that offence and liable to the penalty provided for it.
Unfortunately, the Irish prosecution services failed the victims of ISIS by taking a more passive and lenient path to prosecution. This was against the expressed wishes of the victims of ISIS who had called on nations not to relabel genocide and war crimes as lesser offences. Severity of the sentence was not so much the issue but the descriptive accuracy of the criminal charges were.
Exclusion Order
On 7th May 2021 Smith successfully appealed a British Home Office-issued exclusion order against her on the grounds of public security. Smith had travelled to Syria to join ISIS/Daesh. But after its defeat she was brought back to Ireland on humanitarian grounds for the welfare of her daughter. Smith agrees with the principle that the British may deny individuals entry into the UK in the interests of public safety. However, Smith was afforded the oppurtunity to apply for British citizenship: “She is therefore entitled to be registered as a British citizen if she applies for registration.”[2] The SoS suggested that she would not have issued an exclusion order against a British citizen.[3] Smith has rejected British citizenship. Smith’s father is an Irish citizen born in Belfast ‘without any restriction on his period of residence’. The Judges asserted that “her father was a dual citizen –he was British whether he wanted to be or not and did not renounce it.” Many Irish citizens in the 6 counties do not recognise British citizenship whether the British like it or not.
Nevertheless, the exclusion order was incorrectly issued under regulation 23(5) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, 2016 SI No 1052 (‘the EEA Regulations’). The Decision was certified under regulation 38(2)(a) of the EEA Regulations. Confusingly, Smith seems to argue dual citizenship (probably more an error on her lawyers part):
The decision challenged is unlawful and/or ultra vires because the Appellant is a dual British and Irish citizen (or in the alternative, is entitled to be treated as one) by reason of article 14 of the ECHR read in conjunction with article 8.Given Smiths nationality, the Common Travel Area (CTA) between the UK and Ireland was at issue and not European Economic Area. It is confusing why Smiths lawyers argued that Smith ought to be accredited with dual citizenship when she rejected the offer to apply for British citizenship? Smith’s Irish citizenship alone is sufficient under international law and specifically the GFA. Under parity of esteem, non-British citizens, specifically, Irish citizens can live or travel throughout the 6 counties. Smith's lawyers claimed it was discriminatory to require her to apply for British nationality and take an oath of allegiance because it was "not consistent with her right to self-identify as Irish, a right safeguarded by the Good Friday Agreement[4]". In the case of Caoimhe Ní Chuinneagain, Mr Justice Scoffield accepted that under the GFA.
accept that, as a matter of international law, this recognises a right to identify oneself and be accepted as Irish only; and, relatedly, that it entails a right to be accepted by each Government which was a party to the agreement (including the UK Government) as British or Irish only… It does confer a right to be accepted as Irish only as she so chooses.[5]
All countries have a right to exclude non-nationals. Section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives the Secretary of State power to deprive a person of British citizenship if satisfied that would be conducive to the public good and satisfied that deprivation will not make that person stateless (section 40(4)). Under international law a person cannot be made stateless through loss of citizenship unless the person holds dual citizenship to another country. Had Smith opted to register as a British citizen then she likely would then have been deprived her of it. For example, Shamima Begum had dual citizenship, the UK and Bangladesh. Now she only has her Bangladesh citizenship. The UK revoked her British citizenship on account that her parents were born in Bangladesh. The reverse is true in Smith’s case - her father was born and lives in Belfast and he is an Irish citizen as is she. Neither appear to wish to identify as British as is their right.
The EU & the European Economic Area are Irrelevant
In 1922, the British and Irish authorities agreed to a Common Travel Area (CTA) between the UK and Ireland that includes more than the basic right to travel freely between both countries. For example, under Section 32 of the United Kingdom Borders Act 2007 Irish citizens with criminal records are treated in similar terms as UK citizens: Section 32 “provides as follows: “foreign criminal” means a person–(a) who is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen.” The recent Court also acknowlegded that “the deportation of Irish nationals is significantly more restrictive than the approach she takes to the deportation of other foreign national prisoners.”[6] Even in proceedings involving the NI Protocol[7] it was observed that the Protocol safeguards “the preservation of the UK/Ireland Common Travel Area (“CTA”), a post – partition arrangement of longstanding,” Hence, the CTA is separate from and not dependant upon EU membership therefore arguments around the EEA are void ab intitio.
However, exclusion orders are nothing new as they could be issued against individuals from either jurisdiction. For example, numerous exclusion orders were issued during Operation Banner when suspected members of the Republican Movement were banned from travelling to Great Britain from either the north or south of Ireland. International law and treaties since 1922 created complications for exclusion orders, for example, Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence....). This means that where either government might like to expel a parent, the rights of other family members, especially children, must be considered.
Anti-Irish Bias of Judges
The Judges in Smith’s case seem to be prejudiced by Smith’s refusal to identify as British and:
In those circumstances, it does not seem to me disproportionate to treat her in accordance with her chosen status as a foreign national.
The Court improperly disapproved of her to have the right to freely enter the UK as a British citizen without being willing to acquire that status:
In their written judgment, the Judges appear to be more consumed with Smith’s rejection of British citizenship than any security risk she poses. The judges hearing her case did not have proper regard to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and the right of Irish people to be recognised only as an Irish citizens throughout the 32 counties. The Judges also failed to consider the cultural and social history of Ireland and the free movement of Irish citizens throughout the Irish mainland and its off shore islands. Irish citizen’s intersect the border daily without ever traveling to Great Britain. I imagine, but it is not clearly stated, that Smiths only intention is to travel into the 6 counties but never to venture into Great Britain.
Oath of Allegiance to the Crown
The Judges views about Smith taking the oath of allegiance to the Crown are out of order and not supported in law. Both judges ought to have been aware of the Oaths And Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, which resulted in the amendment of existing legislation in Northern Ireland to remove the requirment of swearing an oath of allegiance or declarations to the Crown. In May 2000, 2 senior barristors won the right to not take the oath of allegience to the crown and to be identified as senior counsel(SC) and not queens counsel(QC)[8]. One barrister became Lord Justice Treacy.
Ms Smith cannot have it both ways. If she wishes to be treated as a British citizen she must accept the obligations that go with that status, including allegiance to the crown, which is owed by those who are British from birth just as much as by those who acquire nationality subsequently.
In their written judgment, the Judges appear to be more consumed with Smith’s rejection of British citizenship than any security risk she poses. The judges hearing her case did not have proper regard to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and the right of Irish people to be recognised only as an Irish citizens throughout the 32 counties. The Judges also failed to consider the cultural and social history of Ireland and the free movement of Irish citizens throughout the Irish mainland and its off shore islands. Irish citizen’s intersect the border daily without ever traveling to Great Britain. I imagine, but it is not clearly stated, that Smiths only intention is to travel into the 6 counties but never to venture into Great Britain.
Oath of Allegiance to the Crown
The Judges views about Smith taking the oath of allegiance to the Crown are out of order and not supported in law. Both judges ought to have been aware of the Oaths And Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, which resulted in the amendment of existing legislation in Northern Ireland to remove the requirment of swearing an oath of allegiance or declarations to the Crown. In May 2000, 2 senior barristors won the right to not take the oath of allegience to the crown and to be identified as senior counsel(SC) and not queens counsel(QC)[8]. One barrister became Lord Justice Treacy.
Conclusion
Nothing redeems Smith or ISIS for the atrocities they committed or supported in Syria. The Brits are not unreasonable for wishing to exclude her from the UK but their arguments for excluding her from the 6 counties are fundamentally flawed. The British Court handling of Smith’s case reveals the underlying prejudice and bias the British judges have for Ireland and the Irish. They show no sensitivity or respect for the indigenious Irish living in the occupied 6 counties. Or their right to identify as Irish. Their treatment of Smith is an exercise in contempt for the GFA and any idea of the 6 counties being a ‘shared space. The judges seem to have arrived at their decision against Smith primarily because she did not identify as British, she did not take up the suggestion that she register as British and she would not pledge any oath of allegiance to the crown. None of these are proper considerations but tend to be more oppresive and coercive to any Irish person who identifies as Irish and not British.
[1] Lisa Smith: Irish ISIS War Criminal.
[2] Secretary of State for the Home Department v Lisa Smith [2021] NIQB 79, at para 15.
[3] ibid, para 50.
[4] UK government can impose entry ban on Lisa Smith, court rules, Irish Examiner, 5 Apr, 2023 .
[5] Caoimhe Ní Chuinneagain [2021] NIQB 79, at paras 21 &27.
[6] ibid, para 96.
[7] James Hugh Allister, Benyamin Naeem Habib, Steve Aiken, the Rt Hon. Arlene Isobel Foster, Baroness Catharine Hoey of Lylehill and Rathlin and William David, the Rt Hon. Baron Trimble of lisnagarvey v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. And the case of Clifford Peeples v (1) The Prime Minister (2) Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (3) Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2022] NICA 15m at at para. 324.
[8] Barristers win case on declaration to queen.
⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.
No comments