Leftist judges blocking deportation of foreign criminals

A Sri Lankan paedophile who molested young boys has been allowed to stay in Britain because he might face persecution back home for being gay. In court, he was described as “a danger to the public”. We have been trying to deport this man for 12 years, and he's even been granted anonymity. But our human rights-obsessed immigration judges have decided he can stay in Britain, just in case the Sri Lankans torture him for being a homosexual. The judge ruled that Article 3 of the ECHR which prohibits torture and inhumane treatment meant that he has to stay.

Why is he our problem? The rule should be that as soon as any non-UK citizen breaks our laws, they forfeit any right to stay here, regardless of whether returning them to their home country might pose a danger to them. Perhaps that would help to deter them from committing acts of criminality in the first place, and this paedophile might have thought twice about his actions, if he knew that automatic deportation would be the consequence.

In another case, it has been revealed that a Syrian asylum seeker who sexually assaulted a teenager might not be sent to prison, because it could breach his human rights. Hassan Abu Mahailer was prowling the streets at 3:00 AM looking for a woman to abuse.

His lawyer, Graham Gilbert, claimed that he has been suffering from PTSD having been tortured in a Syrian jail under the regime of Bashar al-Assad, and even got a doctor's report to say that if he went to prison it could make his condition worse. And yet again, a foreign monster is spared jail time because of Article 3 of the ECHR.

What about the condition of the teenage girl that he abused? Why are the lefty human rights lawyers and immigration judges so insistent on keeping these criminals, who very obviously pose a very real danger to society, in this country and out of prison? How do they benefit from passing such non-sensical judgements?

In another ridiculous case, a Sudanese Asylum seeker with a beard and a receding hairline successfully claimed to be a child. the Home Office claimed he was at least 23 years old, and they confirmed that with a full age assessment. They even said he might have been as old as 25. they said he had wrinkles and crows feet, and had obviously been shaving for a while.

However, one of the judges, Hugo Benedict Norton-Taylor, overruled them. He said that the defendant was a child, and made the local authority pay £30,000 for his legal fees. they found it was more likely than not that he provided a true account of his age and date of birth.

This is the same judge that granted a Palestinian family from Gaza the right to settle in the UK under the Ukraine Family Scheme, even though the scheme was originally intended for Ukrainian nationals only. Once again utilising the ECHR, this time Article 8 which protects the right to family life, this judge has risked opening the floodgates for a wave of Gazan asylum claims.

These immigration judges are out of control, utilising obscure articles contained within the rulings of foreign courts to run roughshod over the rule of law in this country, and against the widespread wishes of the British people.

Judge Norton-Taylor is no stranger to cases like this. He has previously blocked the deportation of an Afghan rapist because the Taliban “take a dim view” of sex offenders, allowed an Albanian illegal immigrant to stay for the sake of his wife’s children by another man and prevented the deportation of a Bangladeshi who murdered his wife and then lied about being bisexual in an effort to stay in Britain.

Another immigration judge behind a string of controversial rulings, it has been revealed, has written dozens of articles for a pro-open borders website. Judge Sarah Pinder, whose decisions at tribunals have sparked a backlash in recent weeks, previously wrote for Free Movement, an online publication. Judge Pinder has made several controversial rulings including allowing a Zimbabwean paedophile to stay in Britain because he would face "hostility" back in his home country due to his sexuality.

She previously ruled that a Jamaican drug dealer should be spared deportation after being told he had a transgender child.

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said: "Judges are trusted to park their political beliefs at the door. But when a judge's open borders political views seamlessly overlap with their expansionist judicial decisions, it's hard to escape the conclusion that they have been compromised."

Rather than the rule of law, this is rule by lawyers.

Under the “living instrument” doctrine, the ECHR has been reinterpreted in ways never intended by the original drafters. This is made significantly worse in Britain by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporated the ECHR rights into domestic law, obviating the need to go to the Strasbourg court at first.

The only way for Britain to restore some common sense into our judiciary when it comes to hearing deportation cases is to repeal the HRA and leave the ECHR, regaining our traditional sovereignty and ending the abuse of our asylum system by judges who seem to prefer activism to common sense. Until we do, countless more dangerous foreign individuals with no right to stay in this country will continue to walk our streets and commit crimes in our towns and cities.