this is bbc news. a massive fire in a high—rise apartment building in valencia kills at least four people. 1a more are still missing. a private spacecraft called odysseus makes the first us moon landing in more than 50 years. and one of bollywood's brightest young talents tackles wildlife crime in ourjungles. hello, i'm lucy grey. shamima begum is about to discover whether she has won a court of appeal challenge over the removal of her british citizenship. ms begum travelled to syria to join the islamic state group in 2015 when she was 15. her citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found in a syrian

refugee camp in february 2019. we are waiting for that to get going, and we will cross to the court of appeal as soon as that starts. the emergency services in the spanish city of valencia have confirmed that at least four people have died in a massive fire in a high—rise apartment building. the government says 1a people are still unaccounted for. the blaze spread rapidly, stoked by highly—inflammable cladding. vincent mcaviney reports. firefighters in valencia were first alerted at around 5:30 yesterday afternoon after a blaze broke out on one of the building's lower floors. it quickly spread, with eyewitnesses saying it engulfed the entire iii—storey structure in a matter of minutes. residents fled to their balconies with firefighters making dramatic rescues. others waited in the

smoke for their turn. translation: it's shocking. i i don't know what to make of it. it's sad, very sad. translation: i told my daughter and mother-in-law to leave. - other people stayed inside. the residential block in valencia's campanar neighbourhood contains 138 flats, thought to be home to around a50 residents. more than 20 fire crews continued to tackle the blaze through the night, as strong winds fanned the flames, helping them to spread to an adjoining building. there are fears for those who may have been trapped inside. a makeshift hospital was set up nearby to treat the injured. local authorities have set up a helpline to assist those searching for loved ones, who lived in the apartments. one expert, who previously inspected the building, has told the spanish press the block's exterior featured a polyurethane material, which is no longer in wide use

because of fears over flammability. with the speed of the fire spread, questions are now being asked in spain notjust about how this fire started, but about how quickly the materials used in the building's construction allowed it to take hold. we can cross straight to the court of appeal for that court case involving shamima begum getting under way, that removal of her british citizenship. lord justice bean sits on the bench remotely. we deliver a short oral summary of the open judgment in this matter. the openjudgment summary of the open judgment in this matter. the open judgment follows three days of hearings, closed and open, in october 2023. and one

closed hearing on february two, 2024. closed hearing on february two, 202a. oursummary closed hearing on february two, 202a. our summary is not in substitution for, nor does it form any part of our open judgment, which we are handing down separately in writing at the end of this hearing. copies of that written judgment are available, together with a written press summary. the neutral citation for the open judgment is 2024, e wca siv 152, and for the open judgment is 2024, e wca siv152, and will appear in the national archives in the normal way. shamima begum was born in the united kingdom in august, 1999. she lived and attended school in tower hamlets. her parents are of bangladeshi origin, and through

them, she had bangladeshi citizenship, and least until her 2ist citizenship, and least until her 21st birthday. in february, 2015, ms begum, then aged 15, travelled through turkey to syria, and aligned with the organisation isil, islamic state of iraq and the levant, also known as isis or daesh, which controlled territory described as the caliphate. she married a isil fighter soon after arriving. she went on to have three children. sadly, none of whom survived. she was still in the caliphate, when it collapsed in january, was still in the caliphate, when it collapsed injanuary, 2019, and was taken to a camp in north—east syria. section 40, subsection two, of the british nationality act 1981, gives

the secretary of state, in practice, the secretary of state, in practice, the home secretary, power to deprive a person of british citizenship, if satisfied that there probation is conducive to the public good. on february the 19th, 2019, without prior notice to ms begum, the then secretary of state made an order depriving her of british citizenship on the ground that it would be conducive to the public good to do so, because her return to the united kingdom would present a risk to national security. there is a right of appeal to the special immigration appeals commission against orders or deprivation of citizenship made on national security grounds. on the 3rd of may 2019, ms begum applied for leave to enter the uk, so that she could take part in her appeal.

that application was refused. on the 26th of february 2021, the united kingdom supreme court held that the secretary of state had acted lawfully in refusing ms begum leave to enter the united kingdom for the purposes of her appeal to siac. she elected to proceed with that appeal notwithstanding that she could not give evidence or be physically present. on the 22nd of february, 2023, siac dismissed ms begum's appeal against the deprivation decision. the issue in this appeal and for us is whether siac was right to conclude that the deprivation decision was lawful. ms begum put forward five grounds of appeal,

ground one, out of the four, the first round was that the secretary of state had failed to consider whether ms begum had been a potential victim of trafficking, for the purposes of sexual exploitation and that this failure breach the obligations owed to her under article four of the european convention on human rights. siac had found that there was, at the very least, a "credible suspicion" that she had been traffic for such purposesin she had been traffic for such purposes in 2015. it was not argued for us that this created an absolute bar to any deprivation order. we conclude that article four of the echr gave rise to no obviously a material consideration in the context of the deprivation decision. the article relied on with the

operational duties comprising the protective and recovery duties that on punishment principled investigative duty, and the restitution re—duty. in ourjudgment there were two obstacles in the way of ms begum's arguments based on the protective duty. the first was that siac had found only in arguable breach of the protective duty by organs of the state, not actual breach. the second was the passage of time between the arguable breach in 2015 and the deprivation decision in 2015 and the deprivation decision in 2019, and the lack of any causal link between the two incidents. the recovery duty did not extend to repatriating a former victim of trafficking, if they had been trafficked abroad. article 16 of the european convention against trafficking did not assist the

appellant in establishing such a duty. the non—punishment principle also did not assist ms begum. there is no authority to suggest that the principle of non—punishment extends beyond criminal prosecutions. to extend the principle to a deprivation decision would go beyond incremental development of the relevant jurisprudence. incremental development of the relevantjurisprudence. the investigative duty, and the argument that any investigation into these respective trafficking in 2015, could only be affected if ms begum were present in the united kingdom was not, in ourjudgment, and obviously material consideration for the secretary of state when making the secretary of state when making the deprivation decisions, three reasons for this, one, the deprivation decisions, three reasons forthis, one, it the deprivation decisions, three reasons for this, one, it would be tantamount to an obligation to repatriate, two, it would be inconsistent with the supreme

court's decision that the secretary of state was not required to enter to present her appeal, thirdly, any investigative duty is only to take reasonable steps and siac were right to find that reasonable steps do not extend to repatriating a person assessed to pose a threat to national security. assessed to pose a threat to nationalsecurity. no assessed to pose a threat to national security. no restitution re—duty was owed in the case as there was no established breach of article four, a portable or arguable breach is insufficient to trigger the restitution re—duty. further, the restitution re—duty. further, the asserted breach occurred four years before the deprivation decision. further, the focus of a deprivation decision on the grounds of national security must be the assessment of risk and we did not

accept the individual assessed as presenting a risk to national security must be repatriated or even that the secretary of state is required to consider repatriation in order to meet obligations which might be owed under article four. round two, trafficking issues as common law. the second round was that the secretary of state failed to take into account the possibility that ms begum had been a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. it was submitted that this was a breach of his duties at common law. although the information before him did not discuss the case in terms of article four, or of the european convention against trafficking, the secretary of state was aware of the

sub—dash—mac circumstances of ms begum's departure to syria and the materials before him powerfully expressed the view that people who were children when they went to aligned with isil should be considered first and foremost as victims. the secretary of state took into account the possibility that ms begum had been a victim of trafficking. that assessment was kept under review after february 2019. siac was entitled to find that theissue 2019. siac was entitled to find that the issue of whether ms begum had travelled voluntarily was within the expertise of the intelligence agencies. voluntary nesse of travel is not a binary question and ms begum may well have been influenced and manipulated by others, but still had made a calculated decision to travel to syria, and to align with isil. the assessment of the national

security risk was in ourjudgment a question of evaluation and judgment, and trusted by parliament, by the secretary of state. round three, de facto statusness, the third round was that the secretary of state failed to consider that section 40 of the british nationality act 1981, prohibits the making of a deprivation order, if the consequence would be to make the person concerned stateless. it is accepted that this means the jury status, status as a matter of international law, and the deprivation order did not make ms begum so stateless because she still retained her bangladeshi citizenship as of february 2019. what was argued

underground three was that the secretary of state nevertheless failed to consider that the deprivation order would make ms begum de facto stateless since there was no realistic possibility of the bangladeshi authorities permitting her to enter that country. siac held, and we agree, that it was sufficient that the ministerial submission and accompanying documents put before the secretary of state when he made the deprivation decision indicated that there was no realistic possibility of ms begum being able to enter bangladesh. it was not necessary that he should have been asked to consider separately the concept of de facto statelessness. ground paul, procedural fairness. de facto statelessness. ground paul, proceduralfairness. —— ground four.

siac hell, departing from its previous case law, going back to algebra against a secular state that home department that ms begum should have been notified of the secretary of state's intention to make a deprivation order against her, and should have been given the opportunity to make representations. we hold that at least a main purpose, if not the main purpose of section 40, subsection two of the british nationality act 1981 seconds case, is to protect the public from a threat to national security, which could be frustrated by a requirement to invite representations prior to a deprivation decision. notifying a person abroad of an intention to remove the citizenship could enable that person to make a pre—emptive return to the united kingdom and

frustrate the purpose of the deprivation decision. those deprived of their citizenship are afforded an appellant level merit review of the deprivation decision, through siac. this distinctive right to appeal, and pre—emptive action are, in our judgment, compelling reasons to construe section 40, subsection five, of the british nationality act 1981 as excluding any right to prior consultation before a deprivation decision is made on national security grounds, as was held in al—jeddah and in ourjudgment siac failing to error in concluding that ms begum was entitled to make

representations before the secretary of state to the deprivation decision. in any event, siac was correct to rule that it was immaterial that ms begum was not afforded the opportunity to make submissions prior to the deprivation decision. it was inevitable that the secretary of state would have made the same decision, regardless of possible representations made by ms begum. round five, the public sector equality duty. the deprivation decision was exempt from considerations of the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the equality act 2010, pursuant to the exemption created by section 192 of the same act, as it concerned the safeguarding of national security.

in this case, the public sector equality duty concerned were whether the exercise of deprivation powers is proportionately applied to british muslims and/or detrimentally upon the relations between members of muslim communities and others. in ourjudgment, the national security our judgment, the national security exemption ourjudgment, the national security exemption applies to any exercise or function of powers. as such, the national security of the deprivation decision was exempt from the duties that arose under section 149. the exemption did not require the court to undertake a separate proportionality assessment. in any event, siac had been correct to find that the deprivation power was

exercised in a proportionate manner. in conclusion, for these reasons, we do now and —— unanimously dismissed the appeal. it could be argued that the appeal. it could be argued that the decision in ms begum's case was harsh, it could also be argued that ms begum is the author of her own misfortune, but it is not for this court to agree or disagree with either point of view. our only task is to assess whether the deprivation decision was unlawful. we have concluded it was not, and the appeal is dismissed. mrjames matthew, you will want time to consider the written decision in full. our

proposal subject to anything you would like to say is that we will adjourn consequential matters for a period of seven days. we will direct that the parties should agree a draft order within that period and, failing such agreement, to submit short submissions to the court by 4pm next friday, that is why they 1st of march, 2024. it is difficult for you to comment because you haven't seen the judgment but does that sound like a realistic time for you? and if you need more time then please communicate with the court in the normal way, subject to that, we conclude with a repeat of our thanks to all counsel and solicitors involved. copies of the written judgment are available to be distributed, together with a written press summary. that concludes this hearing, thank you. blanka mac

shamima begum losing her court of appeal challenge over the loss of a british citizenship, going through the grounds for appeal and saying that they have reached their decision and that the appeal is dismissed. decision and that the appeal is dismissed-— decision and that the appeal is dismissed. ., . ., , dismissed. graham satch others outside the _ dismissed. graham satch others outside the court _ dismissed. graham satch others outside the court of _ dismissed. graham satch others outside the court of appeal - dismissed. graham satch others outside the court of appeal in i outside the court of appeal in central london for us. talk us through the reasoning, just summarise what is being said for us, there, graham. that summarise what is being said for us, there. graham-— there, graham. that was very thorough _ there, graham. that was very thorough and _ there, graham. that was very thorough and interesting, - there, graham. that was very i thorough and interesting, there there, graham. that was very - thorough and interesting, there were five rounds of appeal put forward by her lawyers, and the lord chief justice went through each of them very clearly and dismiss them all. in summary, shamima begum's lawyer said she was a victim of trafficking for sexual exploitation, and the appealjudges said that was not obviously a material consideration in this case, partly because it had

nothing to do with removing her british citizenship due to national security, and also because if she had been trafficked, that happened four years before she ended up being found in this detention camp in syria. she went on to talk about the fact that shamima begum was de facto status, so removing her passport mean she is no longer a uk citizen, and, under un law, you cannot be stateless, you have to be a citizen of somewhere and the appeal court judges said that, at the time, in february 2019, shamima begum was allowed to be a citizen of bangladesh so, in strict legal terms, the home secretary acted within the law. there was an argument about procedural fairness which the court dismissed, and one about public sector equality duty,

with her lawyers arguing that muslims were disproportionately being given these deprivation orders and the court said, no, national security applies to everyone equally. in the end, her appeal has been dismissed and as things stand, she remains in syria.— she remains in syria. basically they are sa in: she remains in syria. basically they are saying that _ she remains in syria. basically they are saying that national— she remains in syria. basically they are saying that national security - are saying that national security has trumped everything else, that is the basic conclusion. that has trumped everything else, that is the basic conclusion.— the basic conclusion. that is exactly right _ the basic conclusion. that is exactly right and _ the basic conclusion. that is exactly right and it - the basic conclusion. that is exactly right and it has - the basic conclusion. that isj exactly right and it has been interesting talking to legal experts as the various court cases have gone on, with two themes been argued, one is that as a 15—year—old child, how much did shamima begum know what she was doing, was she a victim of exploitation and grooming, she was married off as soon as she arrived in syria, had to smack children, she wasjust 15. in syria, had to smack children, she wasjust15. that is in syria, had to smack children, she was just 15. that is one side of the

argument and at various stages through this court process judges have said that yes, it sounds like there is a lot of that going on and on the other side, what you'd like almost a separate argument, whatever all of that stuff is, she is a national security risk, and on those grounds, it is lawful to remove citizenship. that is what the appeal court judges citizenship. that is what the appeal courtjudges here have decided, as you say, national security trumps everything. you say, national security trumps everything-— you say, national security trumps eve hina. _ , ., everything. very briefly, would you exect us everything. very briefly, would you exoect us to _ everything. very briefly, would you exoect us to go _ everything. very briefly, would you expect us to go further? _ everything. very briefly, would you expect us to go further? i - everything. very briefly, would you expect us to go further? i would. i expect us to go further? i would. eve one expect us to go further? i would. everyone who — expect us to go further? i would. everyone who has _ expect us to go further? i would. everyone who has been - expect us to go further? i would. everyone who has been watching| expect us to go further? i would. - everyone who has been watching this case knows that, on both sides, they are determined to get through to the end so we could end up in the highest court in the uk, which is the supreme court.— highest court in the uk, which is the sureme court. . ~ i. , ., ., the supreme court. thank you, graham satchell, for— the supreme court. thank you, graham satchell, for us, _ the supreme court. thank you, graham satchell, for us, at _ the supreme court. thank you, graham satchell, for us, at the _ the supreme court. thank you, graham satchell, for us, at the court _ the supreme court. thank you, graham satchell, for us, at the court of- satchell, for us, at the court of appeal. stay with us, you are watching bbc news.

good morning. it was a chilly start. first thing, frost across parts of scotland and that's because we've changed our air mass here in the uk. the atlantic air has departed. now it's across scandinavia, that deep area of low pressure. and instead we've got this chillier air with us over the next couple of days. to put that in context for the best part of a week and a half now, we've had temperatures into the teens and yesterday saw them dip back down closer to the february average. and that's what is with us for the next couple of days. feeling chilly because of the brisk wind today, which is bringing a lot of showers to northern western scotland, northern ireland, western parts of england along with wales, wintry over the hills, the best of the sunshine, the drier weather further east, but nowhere exempt from the showers because of that brisk wind. and as you can see, we're back down to the seasonal average today. itjust feels colder because it has been so mild recently. now the showers continue this evening but tend to fade away in central and eastern parts overnight.

so i think as the wind falls light as well, we're going to have a problem with fog tomorrow morning, but also frost more widely. we had it in scotland this morning. it'll be across many parts, rural parts as we get towards tomorrow morning. so scraping the ice off the windscreens, if you're heading out early, and the visibility really will be a problem, particularly i think for midlands, central and eastern parts of england where the ground so saturated, we've had so much rain, in fact, we've still got numerous flood warnings out at the moment following yesterday's rain. but as you can see, more showers on saturday. lots of dry weather, though, stilljust nines and tens, and temperatures limited where we have that fog lingering, but it does look predominantly dry. for the rugby matches, the six nations, as you can see, under way tomorrow in ireland and scotland. but come sunday, we're watching this next area of low pressure developing and it's giving us a little bit of a headache as to exactly where it's going to track. looks set to give some more wet and windy weather across france. but increasingly, the computer models seem to be taking some of that wetter,

windier weather across the southern half of the uk, which means that it should stay mostly dry in that cooler air further north. so another cold—ish feeling day, another issue with frost and fog first thing sunday. but then it's how much of that windy, wet weather we see crossing england and wales. we don't need any more rain. still numerous flood warnings in force after recent rain. you can find out the details on the website.

this is bbc news, the headlines... shamima begum — who went to syria to join the islamic state group — loses her latest appeal over the removal of her british citizenship. the uk's energy regulator ofgem announces it's lowering the cap on household gas and electicity prices. and the v&a museum has a �*blank space' in its workforce — and it's looking to fill it with a swiftie. (pres) in the last half an hour, shamima begum has lost her latest appeal over the removal of her british citizenship. ms begum travelled to syria to join the islamic state group in 2015 when she was 15. her citizenship was revoked on national security grounds shortly after she was found in a syrian refugee camp in february 2019. she had argued the decision was unlawful because she was a victim of trafficking. it means she remains

in syria, with no chance of returning to the uk.