The court first ordered the government to reconsider the case in November 2024. The legal ruling shows Security Minister Dan Jarvis advised in July last year that an offer should be made to repatriate the child, but was unsure if he would take the risk of allowing Layla into the U.K.
Then-Home Secretary Yvette Cooper ruled that, despite concern about the boy’s welfare she would take a “precautionary approach” in light of the “national security risk.”
British security service MI5 assessed that Layla, referred to as “T7” in the judgment, was a willing participant in the decision to travel to Syria and that she aligned with ISIS. The security service’s general assessment is that individuals who traveled to Syria to affiliate with ISIS represent a threat.
‘Gravity of the consequences’
Layla’s legal team, backed by the Reprieve charity, put forward three experts who argued her threat to the U.K. is minimal. In evidence to the court, former MI6 counter-terrorism director Richard Barrett argued it was hard to imagine she would “present an unmanageable threat to national security.” The judges noted this was not zero risk, however, even when taking into account the extent of her mental and physical impairment.
Sebastian Gorka has long argued that the U.K. must take back Britons in northeast Syria. | Jason Davis/Getty Images
The three-strong SIAC panel ruled that the government’s decision was “inadequately reasoned” and agreed with Layla that a “more rigorous examination” is necessary, considering “the gravity of the consequences.”
They accepted that the home secretary can take a precautionary approach to avoid grave threats, but believed there was an “inadequate explanation for the secretary of state’s reliance on a precautionary approach in the circumstances of this case.”