Deporting criminal would deprive daughter of male role model, judges rule
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/deporting-criminal-would-deprive-daughter-of-male-role-model-judges-rule-3hp77sslh
Posted by Anony_mouse202
Deporting criminal would deprive daughter of male role model, judges rule
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/deporting-criminal-would-deprive-daughter-of-male-role-model-judges-rule-3hp77sslh
Posted by Anony_mouse202
11 Comments
>The Home Office took the case to appeal but the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber agreed that deporting Leka would breach his Article 8 ECHR rights, which outweighed the public interest in deporting him.
Another one
He grew some plants. He’s hardly a threat to society.
This isn’t a problem with the ECHR. This is a problem with British Judiciary and their _”interpretation”_ of the law. Plenty of countries signed up to the ECHR don’t have these problems of deporting criminals.
Lots of these judges consider themselves social justice warriors, that sit above parliament or the will of the people. Frankly they need to be struck off.
[From the Tribunal decision ](https://tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk/utiac/ui-2024-001142)
“10. We find that adequate reasons are given at paragraph 58 of the decision for finding that it **would be unduly harsh to the claimant’s daughter in the go scenario relating to her mother’s (the claimant’s wife’s) lack of Albanian language and her never having lived there (as she is a Czech citizen born in the Czech republic) and the lack of family members to assist with integration in Albania, along with the loss of the claimant’s daughters rights to live in her country of nationality, namely the UK.** **We do not find it relevant whether the claimant’s wife gave evidence that she would ultimately go to Albania if he were deported:** the question that had to be answered was the hypothetical one: if the family go with the claimant to Albania, if he were deported, would that be unduly harsh to the claimant’s daughter? We find that the First-Tier Tribunal have understood the question, properly directed itself as to the relevant test and given a reasoned decision that it would be unduly harsh.
11. We find that whilst the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal might be viewed as generous it is entirely lawful. The correct test was applied and reasons were given as to why both the stay and go scenarios would be unduly harsh to the claimant’s daughter, and as a result that the claimant was entitled to succeed in his Article 8 ECHR appeal as the public interest was outweighed.”
Whatever your opinions are on this and similar cases – remember the rights of the child comes first in these rulings under the UN treaty on the rights of the child.
That is then balanced with risks, benefits and rights of others.
Better destroy the NHS and remove our right to sick pay. That’ll show them.
However strange this is, I’m glad this rule is now being equally applied to fathers, instead of just mothers.
People will be furious, of course, based on the daily drip feed of this feeding an ecosystem of associated deport foreign criminals Twitter accounts. Meanwhile, over 67,000 cases are awaiting trial at the Crown Court and hardly anybody is outraged that potentially that many dangerous criminals are at free to roam the streets, to use a well known phrase.
At least there are some victories for some farmers
I don’t know if a drug dealer is a role model for a child 🤔
Cannabis farmer?
Yeah, the judge is right. That’s a stupid reason to deprive a child of their parent.