The 2016 research found that the measure left jihadis free to continue terrorist activities abroad, prevented
monitoring and encouraged the “dangerous delusion that terrorism can be made into a foreign problem”.
An inspection by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration in 2017 concluded: “The
effectiveness of [citizenship removal] in protecting the UK from national security threats is hard to assess.”
It is unclear whether any attempt has ever been made to monitor extremists who are deprived of British
citizenship, and the processes used by ministers and intelligence agencies are cloaked in secrecy.
The government has been heavily criticised for allowing the return of more than 400 jihadis from
Syria since 2014, and knows the fear and condemnation that would accompany the return of a high-profile
Isis member like “Jihadi Jack”.
Both prosecution and security service monitoring would require substantial resources, at a time when a
record number of terror investigations are already underway.
But as the head of UK counterterror police has admitted, the assumption that returning foreign fighters
pose the greatest threat to Britain is wrong.
None of the four fatal terror attacks launched in London and Manchester in 2017 were carried out by
returnees from Iraq and Syria, and several plots have been mounted by Isis supporters prevented from
leaving the UK.
“The threat was already here – and there are still plenty of aspirant or frustrated travellers who now have
nowhere to go,” said Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner Neil Basu.
The government has not disclosed the public safety case for removing Letts’ British nationality and leaving
him a Canadian citizen, sparking a diplomatic row with Ottawa.
Home Office statistics show that the power was used only a handful of times a year, until deprivations
rocketed from 14 people in 2016 to 104 in 2017.
Figures showing that only one in 10 jihadis returning from Syria have been successfully prosecuted may
provide a clue to the government’s thinking.
But Letts, like Shamima Begum, has conducted media interviews where he admitted joining Isis and
formerly supporting the group’s terror attacks in Europe.
That is ample material for a prosecution under UK terror laws, either for joining a banned organisation or
for encouraging terrorism.
The recovery of any electronic devices would probably yield additional evidence of offences including the
collection and dissemination of terrorist propaganda.
Rather than being forced to take exceptional measures to protect the public, the government is in danger of
appearing to be washing its hands of homemade jihadis who could be brought to justice in British courts.
The decision to remove Begum’s citizenship is already facing legal challenge and as more cases emerge, the
government may yet have to prove its assertions.