At last I can respond to BOOTWU and
@Sumo. Sorry for the delay, chaps, but I've been down in Chatham trying to get a reduced sentence for a high-reading drink driver (65/100ml in breath, the limit's 35). To top it off he was also done for dangerous driving, going the wrong way up a slip road onto a dual carriageway at 0400. The District Judge decided it crossed the prison sentence threshold but he'd give the guy 100 hours community service, 15 days rehab and a curfew, coupled with an 18-month ban. Not too bad.
Anyway, back to our Bangladeshi ISIL bride. I've taken the time to read the judgment, and it's clear that the Supreme Court reckoned that the Court of Appeal had allowed itself to be persuaded down the wrong road. (Full marks to David Pannick QC for succeeding in the CA, but nul points in the final round). The European Convention on Human Rights only affected one small part of the case and the Supreme Court ruled that on the EHCR case-law, Ms B couldn't win that point. It also held, consistently with ECHR decisions, that the fact that Ms B couldn't win without digging deep into security-sensitive material meant that her case should be thrown out. That isn't unfair, because the law is about fairness to
both sides.
As for trying to take the case further, Ms B is not covered by the ECHR, because she is not a citizen of a Council of Europe country (any more) and isn't physically present in such a country, so tough sh*t. If she wants to carry on with her main appeal, she can, but she won't be able to come here to do it, and it may be her lawyers will advise that she gives up because it will be too difficult for them to do the case without her.