Even if she could somehow access Zoom or Teams or similar (she can't) it is no substitute for proper face to face work with legal representation.
Which she could have as well. What she won't have is face to face interaction with the judge and prosecution.
For double standards see media coverage of Aung San Suu Kyi's non appearance in court today. Everybody realised the games the coup leaders are playing by denying her a day in court. It shouldn't matter whether you are a world leader or a dumb kid who thought she was on an adventure, your rights should be the same. Of course they are both having theirs denied right now but we only seem bothered by the one and not the other.
Apples and orangutans.
As I said - what worried me for Begum is that even should she somehow get access to a hearing, the 'Supreme Court' has already said Javid's interpretation of 'national security' trumps her human rights. The appeal against having her
citizenship revoked appears to have already been decided
No. You are getting yourself in a tizzy over things the SC did not say. The appeals court said Begum's right to a fair
hearing in the UK overrode national security concerns. The SC said it does not. That does not mean it cannot outweigh them.
You have to be realistic. Having made extraordinary efforts to join a genocidal NGO, breeding and fatally neglecting 3 children, and seemingly unrepentant, the verdict appears to be a formality. Maybe her lawyers can pull some horror story of an abusive upbringing out of a hat to change the scales. This is no different than many other cases. Impartiality does not forbid opinion, it forbids an unwillingness to change it.
(I admit my bias - I would not strip anyone of their citizenship. It is a pusillanimous act designed to push problem people onto someone else's list of difficult things to do. I thought we still thought we ruled the world - apparently we can't deal with a schoolgirl from Bethnal Green.)
The case is not terribly satisfactory. It appears to rest on Begum's eligibility for Bangladeshi citizenship, and, yeah it's mere opportunism to revoke her citizenship before Bangladesh does. There is a structural conundrum in that the citizen in question is most likely to be somewhere else, doing bad things, and not welcome to return, yet must be offered a chance to challenge any revocation of citizenship.
As for "schoolgirls": they can do horrendous harm; and you keep ducking the question of how you would prosecute her for activities in far away places, where witnesses, evidence, investigators, police, and all the other mechanisms of a judicial system are wanting.