hereBut, at a remote hearing on Monday, Sir James Eadie QC – representing the Home Office – told the Supreme Court: “The exposure of the public to an increased risk of terrorism is not justifiable or appropriate in this case on fairness grounds.”He said of Ms Begum: “She married an IS fighter, lived in Raqqa – the capital of the self-declared caliphate – and remained with them for about four years until 2019, when she left from, in effect, the last pocket of IS territory in Baghuz.”In written submissions, Sir James said: “This case raises questions as to the balance to be struck between degrees of protection of procedural rights and degrees of protection of the public from terrorism.“Can it be right that a person who has involved themself.
Read more on manchestereveningnews.co.uk