Judges have ruled an illegal migrant who stabbed a man to death after he was supposed to be deported can stay in Britain, citing his “human rights”.
The killer, a Sri Lankan man who can be identified at ‘GR’ due to the judges protecting his identity, came to Britain in 2002 aged 28 and lodged an asylum claim which was rejected as illegitimate. lodging an appeal against the decision, which was also rejected, and then another citing the Human Rights Act, which enshrines the Euorpean Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in British law.
As bogus asylum seekers are not detained until their deportation can be arranged, however, he remained at large, and “committed a number of criminal offences following the refusal of his appeal” in the meantime, according to an Upper Tribunal judge.
In 2006 his criminality worsened, and he was “handed two short jail terms for assault, and later that year a further assault led to a hospital order,” according to the Daily Mail — but his deportation was still not carried out.
Finally, in 2010, he killed a man living in the same sheltered accommodation, stabbing him 21 times — but even this was not enough to him removed from the country, and in 2019 he lodged another asylum claim which accepted by a lower asylum and immigration tribunal on “human rights” grounds.
Judges Block Deportation of Migrant Drug Dealer, Cite ‘Human Rights’ https://t.co/6ZcSJZAX6x
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) October 12, 2020
Priti Patel’s Home Office appealed this decision in December — the fourth hearing concerning the migrant’s place in the country — but the Upper Tribunal agreed with the decision to let him remain.
Judges frequently prevent the removal of illegal migrants from Britain — grounding an entire removal flight to Spain, a safe, first world EU member-state, just this September — as well as criminal migrants, whether they originally arrived legally or illegally.
In 2017, for example, the Court of Appeal ruled it would “not be fair” to deport a paedophile from Zimbabwe, not because the Government did not have just grounds to remove him but because its lawyers had taken too long to make the correct arguments to remove him.
In June this year, a judge ruled that a Taliban terrorist who already had an asylum claim rejected and lost six taxpayer-funded appeals could stay after all, because Afghanistan would not do as good a job as the British health service of providing him with free healthcare for the PTSD he supposedly acquired while fighting in the country — against Britain and its allies.
The Conservative Party has pledged for years that it will take action to increase deportations and change the laws which allow judges to keep dangerous foreigners in the country, but in fact, they have fallen to their lowest level in years.
Priti Patel has suggested that meaningful action will, finally, be taken months from now when the Brexit-in-name-only “transition” period finally expires at the end of 2020 — but changes to the Human Rights Act would still be needed to make a difference, as well as an exit from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU institution and will continue to be able to enforce the European Convention in Britain regardless of its EU membership and regardless of whether or not the domestic Human Rights Act is changed or abolished.
Boris Johnson’s government is not seriously discussing doing any of this, however, despite having a substantial parliamentary majority — and it has even offered assurances to the EU that it will remain committed to the European Convention after 2020.
Once again, the courts ignore the interests of the community with dire consequences. This is another example of why the asylum system is in desperate need of reform.https://t.co/Vyrn8CZzF3
— Migration Watch (@MigrationWatch) October 21, 2020