Article | Archive
The Telegraph. Published: 11 April 2025
The court found that the unnamed asylum seeker, who has been dependent on alcohol since 2006, would suffer stress if deported to his homeland, which would worsen his mental health.
Judges in the upper immigration tribunal ruled that this would amount to a breach of article three of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects against persecution and inhumane treatment.
His appeal was granted despite the Home Office arguing that the man, who had been jailed for unspecified crimes, would be able to secure the medication and treatment that he needed in Somali for his schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, backed by funding from the department.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where failed asylum seekers or convicted foreign criminals have attempted to halt their deportations, often by claiming breaches of their human rights.
There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour’s efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants.
The Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber was told the man – who was granted anonymity – moved to the UK in 1999 when he was 29. He told the tribunal that his family previously faced persecution as a result of their membership in a clan.
The man, who was accompanied by his support worker during the hearing, was said to have a “high level of vulnerability” and “complex needs” having experienced long-standing health problems. He has been “significantly dependent” on alcohol since 2006 and has served time in prison.
“The severity of his mental health problems is closely linked to his stress levels and use of alcohol,” the tribunal said.
Lawyers representing the asylum seeker said he would have “no real prospect” of returning to Mogadishu and making a living for himself. They emphasised that the financial support he would receive would be “limited”, and in any event, the man had a “history of being financially exploited”.
This related to a time in his accommodation when he was “targeted for money” by other residents after it became known that he was receiving disability benefits.
It was further argued that the assistance the man might receive from his clan would not constitute the kind of “24-hour support and monitoring” that he requires in order to meet his “core vulnerabilities.” They said he would have to “pay for his antipsychotic medication”.
Lawyers representing the Home Office argued that the humanitarian conditions in Somalia did not reach the threshold of serious harm. They said it would be rare for a person of his clan to be compelled to reside in the Internally Displaced Person [IDR] camp.
They said that schizophrenia is recognised as a mental health disorder in Somalia, which has “some psychiatrists”. Ultimately, they argued the man would be able to access his medication and relevant psychiatric healthcare in his home country.
They said that this, coupled with the financial package offered through the Facilitated Return Scheme, believed to be of a sum of £750, meant the man would be able to access the required medication and support scheme.
The scheme encourages the early departure of foreign national offenders from the UK, by providing financial support for reintegration in their origin countries. Evidence from doctors suggested the man could “become well” if he abstained from alcohol and complied with his medication.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Ian Jarvis said: “I conclude that the weight of the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the [man] will very quickly become noncompliant with his medication.. without the 24/7 support and monitoring which he currently receives in the United Kingdom.”
Upholding his appeal, the judge ruled his mental health would “seriously deteriorate” if he were to return to Somalia.
Note from Temperance: The article above linked to another, very similar article from just last month. Enjoy!
Article | Archive - Published: 26 March 2025
And more lunacy, from just two days ago:
Article | Archive - Published: 10 April 2025
Only semi-related, but I thought it was hilarious...
Article | Archive - Published: 10 April 2025
The Telegraph. Published: 11 April 2025
Deporting migrant would ‘stress’ him out, judge rules
A Somali criminal seeking asylum in the UK has avoided deportation after a judge ruled that returning him to his home country would cause him too much “stress”.The court found that the unnamed asylum seeker, who has been dependent on alcohol since 2006, would suffer stress if deported to his homeland, which would worsen his mental health.
Judges in the upper immigration tribunal ruled that this would amount to a breach of article three of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects against persecution and inhumane treatment.
His appeal was granted despite the Home Office arguing that the man, who had been jailed for unspecified crimes, would be able to secure the medication and treatment that he needed in Somali for his schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, backed by funding from the department.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where failed asylum seekers or convicted foreign criminals have attempted to halt their deportations, often by claiming breaches of their human rights.
There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour’s efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants.
The Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber was told the man – who was granted anonymity – moved to the UK in 1999 when he was 29. He told the tribunal that his family previously faced persecution as a result of their membership in a clan.
The man, who was accompanied by his support worker during the hearing, was said to have a “high level of vulnerability” and “complex needs” having experienced long-standing health problems. He has been “significantly dependent” on alcohol since 2006 and has served time in prison.
“The severity of his mental health problems is closely linked to his stress levels and use of alcohol,” the tribunal said.
Lawyers representing the asylum seeker said he would have “no real prospect” of returning to Mogadishu and making a living for himself. They emphasised that the financial support he would receive would be “limited”, and in any event, the man had a “history of being financially exploited”.
This related to a time in his accommodation when he was “targeted for money” by other residents after it became known that he was receiving disability benefits.
It was further argued that the assistance the man might receive from his clan would not constitute the kind of “24-hour support and monitoring” that he requires in order to meet his “core vulnerabilities.” They said he would have to “pay for his antipsychotic medication”.
Risk of ‘destitution’ in Somalia
Overall, they said his mental health would “very quickly decline” if he were to return to Somalia, so much so that he would “fall into destitution.” He said the man would likely end up in an internally displaced person camp featuring “dire conditions’ and the potential for violence.Lawyers representing the Home Office argued that the humanitarian conditions in Somalia did not reach the threshold of serious harm. They said it would be rare for a person of his clan to be compelled to reside in the Internally Displaced Person [IDR] camp.
They said that schizophrenia is recognised as a mental health disorder in Somalia, which has “some psychiatrists”. Ultimately, they argued the man would be able to access his medication and relevant psychiatric healthcare in his home country.
They said that this, coupled with the financial package offered through the Facilitated Return Scheme, believed to be of a sum of £750, meant the man would be able to access the required medication and support scheme.
The scheme encourages the early departure of foreign national offenders from the UK, by providing financial support for reintegration in their origin countries. Evidence from doctors suggested the man could “become well” if he abstained from alcohol and complied with his medication.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Ian Jarvis said: “I conclude that the weight of the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the [man] will very quickly become noncompliant with his medication.. without the 24/7 support and monitoring which he currently receives in the United Kingdom.”
Upholding his appeal, the judge ruled his mental health would “seriously deteriorate” if he were to return to Somalia.
Note from Temperance: The article above linked to another, very similar article from just last month. Enjoy!
Article | Archive - Published: 26 March 2025
Pakistani paedophile allowed to stay in UK because he is an alcoholic
Man considered ‘danger to community’ and was jailed for sexually assaulting girl under 13 and assaulting emergency workers.A convicted Pakistani paedophile was allowed to stay in Britain because he is an alcoholic.
The Pakistani, who was jailed for sexually assaulting a girl under 13, was allowed to remain on human rights grounds because of his “uncontrollable alcohol consumption”.
An asylum tribunal ruled that because alcohol was illegal in his Muslim home country, he would likely end up in jail in his home country and face “inhuman or degrading treatment”.
It was judged that this would amount to a breach of his rights under Article three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Home Office has appealed to an upper tribunal in an attempt to overturn the verdict and has secured a re-hearing of the case after arguing that the man could give up alcohol and comply with the law in Pakistan.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have used human rights laws to remain in the UK or halt their deportations.
They include an Albanian criminal who avoided deportation after claiming that his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, and a Pakistani paedophile who was jailed for child sex offences but escaped removal from the UK as it would be “unduly harsh” on his own children.
There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour’s efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants.
The Pakistani came to the UK in 2010 with leave as a spouse and lived with his wife. The couple had a son who is a British citizen. But their marriage broke down after he assaulted her and was convicted of battery for his domestic violence.
After their 2018 divorce, he was granted leave to remain because of his relationship with his son. In July 2020, he was jailed for a year after he assaulted emergency service workers when “heavily intoxicated”. He then sexually assaulted someone while on bail for the first offence.
In August 2020 he was issued with a deportation order but in December 2022, while still in the country he was jailed for a year again after he sexually assaulted a girl under 13.
He lodged an appeal against his deportation order and a psychiatrist warned about his alcohol dependency – said to be triggered by his divorce – and the impact that it would have on him in Pakistan. Owning or possessing alcohol is illegal for Muslims in Pakistan.
The Pakistani argued that he would be “punished” with imprisonment in his home country and “it is well-known that prison conditions are inhuman and degrading in Pakistan”. His claim was accepted by first-tier tribunal Judge Leanne Turner who ruled that it would be unfair to deport him.
The Home Office appealed, arguing that it was down to the Pakistani to “take responsibility for his behaviour”, comply with the law and that he “should change his behaviour”. It added that while it “might be difficult, it was not open to him to say that he would drink and end up in prison”.
Upper tribunal Judge Soraya Reeds found in favour of the Home Office and set aside the June 2024 decision, saying the lower tribunal had inappropriately “speculated” and “started from the assumption he would drink and would be imprisoned”.
Judge Reeds said the judge did not take it into account that the evidence does not show that he would definitely go to prison. She said: “Given that there are likely to be Muslims in Pakistan who drink and possess alcohol, the assertion that all will be arrested, prosecuted and indeed receive imprisonment is not evidenced.
“The country evidence only sets out in general terms that the possession of alcohol for Muslims is banned and that this can give rise to arrest and prosecution and punishment can be imprisonment and/or a fine.
“It does not set out nor is there any acceptance that all of those found to be in possession of alcohol or drinking alcohol are either prosecuted or if they are they receive a sentence of imprisonment.”
The Pakistani, who was jailed for sexually assaulting a girl under 13, was allowed to remain on human rights grounds because of his “uncontrollable alcohol consumption”.
An asylum tribunal ruled that because alcohol was illegal in his Muslim home country, he would likely end up in jail in his home country and face “inhuman or degrading treatment”.
It was judged that this would amount to a breach of his rights under Article three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Convicted of beating his wife
The tribunal heard that the man, who was granted anonymity, is considered a “danger to the community” and has also been convicted in Britain of another sexual assault, beating his wife and assaulting emergency workers.The Home Office has appealed to an upper tribunal in an attempt to overturn the verdict and has secured a re-hearing of the case after arguing that the man could give up alcohol and comply with the law in Pakistan.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have used human rights laws to remain in the UK or halt their deportations.
They include an Albanian criminal who avoided deportation after claiming that his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, and a Pakistani paedophile who was jailed for child sex offences but escaped removal from the UK as it would be “unduly harsh” on his own children.
There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour’s efforts to fast-track removal of illegal migrants.
The Pakistani came to the UK in 2010 with leave as a spouse and lived with his wife. The couple had a son who is a British citizen. But their marriage broke down after he assaulted her and was convicted of battery for his domestic violence.
After their 2018 divorce, he was granted leave to remain because of his relationship with his son. In July 2020, he was jailed for a year after he assaulted emergency service workers when “heavily intoxicated”. He then sexually assaulted someone while on bail for the first offence.
In August 2020 he was issued with a deportation order but in December 2022, while still in the country he was jailed for a year again after he sexually assaulted a girl under 13.
He lodged an appeal against his deportation order and a psychiatrist warned about his alcohol dependency – said to be triggered by his divorce – and the impact that it would have on him in Pakistan. Owning or possessing alcohol is illegal for Muslims in Pakistan.
The Pakistani argued that he would be “punished” with imprisonment in his home country and “it is well-known that prison conditions are inhuman and degrading in Pakistan”. His claim was accepted by first-tier tribunal Judge Leanne Turner who ruled that it would be unfair to deport him.
‘Uncontrollable alcohol consumption’
Judge Turner said there was “sufficient evidence to show that the [Pakistani] would face inhuman or degrading treatment on return to Pakistan as a result of a highly likely criminal prosecution and imprisonment for his uncontrollable alcohol consumption”.The Home Office appealed, arguing that it was down to the Pakistani to “take responsibility for his behaviour”, comply with the law and that he “should change his behaviour”. It added that while it “might be difficult, it was not open to him to say that he would drink and end up in prison”.
Upper tribunal Judge Soraya Reeds found in favour of the Home Office and set aside the June 2024 decision, saying the lower tribunal had inappropriately “speculated” and “started from the assumption he would drink and would be imprisoned”.
Judge Reeds said the judge did not take it into account that the evidence does not show that he would definitely go to prison. She said: “Given that there are likely to be Muslims in Pakistan who drink and possess alcohol, the assertion that all will be arrested, prosecuted and indeed receive imprisonment is not evidenced.
“The country evidence only sets out in general terms that the possession of alcohol for Muslims is banned and that this can give rise to arrest and prosecution and punishment can be imprisonment and/or a fine.
“It does not set out nor is there any acceptance that all of those found to be in possession of alcohol or drinking alcohol are either prosecuted or if they are they receive a sentence of imprisonment.”
And more lunacy, from just two days ago:
Article | Archive - Published: 10 April 2025
Iranian asylum seeker dodges deportation because he has 'so many Facebook friends'
An Iranian asylum seeker has won the right to appeal against deportation by arguing his large number of Facebook friends puts him at risk of persecution.
The 38-year-old man claimed the Iranian government could be monitoring his Facebook account due to his popularity and attendance at protests outside their London embassy.
Upper Tribunal Judge Rebecca Chapman ruled last month that a previous court was wrong to dismiss this argument.
She granted him the right to appeal for the fifth time after finding the earlier judge had "failed to take account" of evidence about his social media presence.
The man has spent nine years resisting the Home Office's attempts to remove him since first claiming asylum in Britain in 2016.
Court documents show he came to Britain in 2015 and claimed asylum the following year, losing his initial claim in 2019. His lawyer argued previous judges had made mistakes in their approach to the social media evidence.
Judge Chapman said: "In light of the judge's failure to take account of material considerations i.e. the evidence that he had a large number of Facebook friends or contacts, I find that his findings as to the potential effect of this evidence is unsustainable."
The case will now be reheard by a different First Tier Tribunal Judge.
The 38-year-old man claimed the Iranian government could be monitoring his Facebook account due to his popularity and attendance at protests outside their London embassy.
Upper Tribunal Judge Rebecca Chapman ruled last month that a previous court was wrong to dismiss this argument.
She granted him the right to appeal for the fifth time after finding the earlier judge had "failed to take account" of evidence about his social media presence.
The man has spent nine years resisting the Home Office's attempts to remove him since first claiming asylum in Britain in 2016.
Court documents show he came to Britain in 2015 and claimed asylum the following year, losing his initial claim in 2019. His lawyer argued previous judges had made mistakes in their approach to the social media evidence.
Judge Chapman said: "In light of the judge's failure to take account of material considerations i.e. the evidence that he had a large number of Facebook friends or contacts, I find that his findings as to the potential effect of this evidence is unsustainable."
The case will now be reheard by a different First Tier Tribunal Judge.
Only semi-related, but I thought it was hilarious...
Article | Archive - Published: 10 April 2025
Asylum-seeking family who 'pretended to be Afghans to get into Britain' deny immigration charges
A family accused of masquerading as Afghan nationals to illegally claim asylum in the UK have appeared in court to deny immigration charges.
Husband Gurbakhsh Singh, 72, wife Ardet Kaur, 68, son Guljeet Singh, 44, and his wife Kawaljeet Kaur, 37, are alleged said to have made the claim when they arrived at Heathrow Airport in December, 2023.
The four have already twice failed to obtain visas as declared Indian citizens and appeared at Croydon Crown Court today with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter.
The family have vowed to fight the case, with a seven-day trial already scheduled for February 2, next year.
Today, three members of the family - all except Kawaljeet Kaur - denied the two charges against each of them.
They all pleaded not guilty to a charge of arriving in the UK without entry clearance on December 23, 2023.
They also all pleaded not guilty to a charge of entering the UK without a passport on the same date, failing at a leave to remain/asylum interview to be in possession of an immigration document to establish their identity, nationality and citizenship.
Kawaljeet Kaur had already denied these same charges at the previous hearing last month.
Father and son Gurbakhsh Singh (left) and Guljeet Singh (right) are seen leaving Croydon Magistrates' Court last year over claims they lied about being Afghans to get asylum in the UK.
Kawaljeet Kaur (keft) and Ardet Kaur (right) outside court. Kawaljeet and her mother in law face the same charges.
The family were each further granted unconditional bail to return for the trial next year.
It is alleged they had all previously declared themselves to be Indian nationals and provided documentary evidence in two failed visa applications three months earlier.
The entire family, plus two children who arrived with them, were initially housed at Wembley’s Holiday Inn, but now all reside together in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire.
They have complained that press reporting of the case has resulted in them being recognised and stopped in the street and led to a TikTok video.
Husband Gurbakhsh Singh, 72, wife Ardet Kaur, 68, son Guljeet Singh, 44, and his wife Kawaljeet Kaur, 37, are alleged said to have made the claim when they arrived at Heathrow Airport in December, 2023.
The four have already twice failed to obtain visas as declared Indian citizens and appeared at Croydon Crown Court today with the assistance of a Punjabi interpreter.
The family have vowed to fight the case, with a seven-day trial already scheduled for February 2, next year.
Today, three members of the family - all except Kawaljeet Kaur - denied the two charges against each of them.
They all pleaded not guilty to a charge of arriving in the UK without entry clearance on December 23, 2023.
They also all pleaded not guilty to a charge of entering the UK without a passport on the same date, failing at a leave to remain/asylum interview to be in possession of an immigration document to establish their identity, nationality and citizenship.
Kawaljeet Kaur had already denied these same charges at the previous hearing last month.
Father and son Gurbakhsh Singh (left) and Guljeet Singh (right) are seen leaving Croydon Magistrates' Court last year over claims they lied about being Afghans to get asylum in the UK.
Kawaljeet Kaur (keft) and Ardet Kaur (right) outside court. Kawaljeet and her mother in law face the same charges.
The family were each further granted unconditional bail to return for the trial next year.
It is alleged they had all previously declared themselves to be Indian nationals and provided documentary evidence in two failed visa applications three months earlier.
The entire family, plus two children who arrived with them, were initially housed at Wembley’s Holiday Inn, but now all reside together in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire.
They have complained that press reporting of the case has resulted in them being recognised and stopped in the street and led to a TikTok video.
