UK cannot deport Nigerian convicted of rape, European court rules

The Home Office's ability to deport individuals who have committed crimes may be curtailed by a European court judgment banning the removal of a Nigerian man convicted of rape.

The Strasbourg court ruled that the 24-year-old man, known as AA, would have his right to family life "violated" if he was sent back to Nigeria. He lives with his mother, a nurse, in England.

In its finding, the court declared: "The applicant's deportation from the United Kingdom would be disproportionate to the legitimate aim of the 'prevention of disorder and crime' and would therefore not be necessary in a democratic society."

How much of a precedent the case will set was not immediately clear. The man was convicted of rape at the age of 15 but parole reports showed he had responded "positively" to rehabilitation and was subsequently deemed to pose a low risk of reoffending.

Welcoming the decision, the Aire Centre, the legal centre which took the case to the European court of human rights, described it as a "resounding victory". The young man has obtained both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in the UK since leaving school, it said.

A spokeswoman added: "There has been the most spectacular rehabilitation of a juvenile offender. The blanket approach [to deportation] taken by the UK was totally inappropriate."

The Home Office did not comment immediately on the judgment. Last year about 5,000 "foreign national criminals" were deported from the UK at the end of their sentences.

In its judgment, the court explained: "The fact that the applicant was a minor when he committed the offence does not preclude his deportation given the seriousness of the offence in question.

"[But that] consideration must be carefully weighed against the applicant's exemplary conduct and, as the evidence before the court demonstrates, commendable efforts to rehabilitate himself and to reintegrate into society over a period of seven years.

"In such circumstances, the [UK] government are required to provide further support for their contention that the applicant can reasonably be expected to cause disorder or to engage in criminal activities such as to render his deportation necessary in a democratic society.

"However, the government have neither cited other relevant concerns nor submitted any documents capable of supporting such a contention."
(from Guardian)

EEC rules suck....

Let that be a lesson to all you Channel Islanders, steer well clear of the EU. Once they get you in their web there is no escape.

I'm slightly confused by that comment Kingcolemk. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union.

It is an intergal part of the EU's Human Rights legislation, which was signed into law by all EU member States, including Tony Blair. As far as I know their rulings have no legal validity in the Channel Islands.

Kingcolemk - It has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. It was set up by the Council of Europe and Guernsey signed up to it decades before Tony Blair becoming a politician. Many of those signed up to the European Convention on Human rights are a million mlies away from having any involvememnt with the EU. Guernsey and Jersey are both fully signed up to - and bound by - the convention. Its fine to be anti-EU but please don't blame them for things they are wholly unconnected to. Daily mail reader by any chance?

No I am not a Daily Mail reader. I would never have anything to do with any rag which is disrespectful of the Queen and her family. So I don't read any papers.



Anyway, apart from their hounding of the Royals, what they publish is mostly correct.

it is my opinion that deportation should take place when any crime is committed by an incomer into whatever country nomatter race or religion..each country has enough of their own breed of criminals to support without importing them from other countries

Why has it taken so long to deport this fellow. The crime was committed when he was 15 he is now 24. In that time he appears to have turned his life round got qualified etc, probably one of the people you would rather keep than some of the ones legitimately scrounging in the UK. I suppose everyone is entitled to a second chance. And I expect some on the forum to jump up and down shouting "did his victim get a second chance etc etc" bear in mind two wrongs don't make a right.