Migrant Convicted of Manslaughter Avoids Deportation Due to EU Regulations

[Social Media]

 

William George, a Belgian national and convicted gang member involved in the killing of 18-year-old Abdul Hafidah, cannot be deported from the UK despite a six-year legal battle led by Home Office officials. George, who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for manslaughter in connection with Hafidah’s brutal death, has been shielded from deportation due to EU regulations that were in effect at the time of his conviction.

 

Hafidah was murdered in Manchester in May 2016, in an attack witnessed by commuters during rush hour. A member of the Rusholme Crips gang, Hafidah was hunted down by members of the rival AO gang after straying into their territory in Moss Side. He was beaten, struck with a car, and stabbed in the neck. George played a key role in the attack, confronting Hafidah and allowing others to catch up to him, ultimately leading to his death. Seven men were convicted of murder, while George and two others were convicted of manslaughter.

 

Despite George's conviction and his association with the notorious AO gang, his deportation to Belgium has been blocked due to regulations stemming from EU directives. George, who moved to the UK at the age of eight, was served with deportation papers in 2018, citing a “real risk” of reoffending. However, EU nationals who have lived in the UK for a significant period are protected from deportation unless it can be shown that they pose an “imperative” threat to public security.

 

In the latest development of the case, the Court of Appeal upheld an earlier immigration court decision quashing George’s deportation. The court ruled that George did not meet the strict criteria for removal under the EU regulations, which were in force prior to Brexit. Lord Justice Nicholas Underhill stated that as a European Economic Area (EEA) national, George was entitled to the highest level of protection against removal. The court concluded that there had been no legal error in the previous decision and that George, who has shown remorse and expressed no intention of reoffending, does not pose a sufficient risk to justify deportation.

 

The immigration tribunal ruling emphasized George's remorse and efforts to rebuild his life after serving time in prison. Judge Bruce, who presided over the case, described George as a once-promising footballer with no prior criminal record. He had been working toward a semi-professional football career, securing a contract with Morecambe FC and a scholarship at Lancaster College before becoming involved in the killing of Hafidah. His life changed drastically after the crime, and he has since spent almost seven years in prison. The court acknowledged that George had learned a hard lesson about the consequences of violence and believed his claims of rehabilitation.

 

Lord Justice Underhill reiterated the gravity of George’s actions but noted that deportation is not automatically linked to the severity of the crime. Instead, it depends on whether the individual poses a serious ongoing threat to public security. In George’s case, the court found no compelling evidence that he did. "Nothing in our decision means that we take anything but the most serious view of Mr George’s conduct. But he has been punished for that conduct by the sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment which he received,” Underhill said, adding, “The judge, after carefully weighing all the evidence, found that he does not [pose a future threat]. I must say that I find her reasoning convincing, but in any event, it contains no error of law."

 

The outcome of the case has sparked concerns, particularly among those who argue that serious offenders should be deported. Following Brexit, the UK no longer adheres to EEA regulations, meaning non-British criminals can now be deported if they are sentenced to 12 months or more in prison. However, George’s crime, which was committed before Brexit, was still governed by pre-existing EU rules. The case has drawn comparisons to previous instances where EU regulations prevented the deportation of criminals, such as the infamous case of Learco Chindamo, the killer of headteacher Philip Lawrence.

 

For now, William George remains in the UK, living in a bail hostel and reportedly working to rebuild his life. His case highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding immigration and deportation, particularly for individuals who committed crimes before Brexit took full effect.

 

Based on a report from the Daily Telegraph 2024-10-21

 

 

 

[jippytum]

This is why Britain must leave the European Court of Civil Rights.

Convicted illegal immigrants and far left lawyers are making a mockery of justicr and common sense. 

[JonnyF]

If we can't deport scumbags like this, what chance does the country have?

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, jippytum said:

This is why Britain must leave the European Court of Civil Rights.

Convicted illegal immigrants and far left lawyers are making a mockery of justicr and common sense. 

This wouldn't change anything in this case, 'The EU regulations were in effect at the time of his conviction'

[Red Forever]

I bet my mate Malcolm 100 baht that I could name the first 3 responders to this post. I got 2 out of 3.

BTW, what is the ""European Court of Civil Rights"?

[Theforgotten1]

25 minutes ago, Red Forever said:

I bet my mate Malcolm 100 baht that I could name the first 3 responders to this post. I got 2 out of 3.

BTW, what is the ""European Court of Civil Rights"?

European Court of Human Rights , is rights for criminals and no rights for honest law abiding people. 

[Red Forever]

10 minutes ago, Theforgotten1 said:

European Court of Human Rights , is rights for criminals and no rights for honest law abiding people. 

Ah right. So it's not the "Court of Civil Rights" then.

You're saying that "honest law abiding people" have "no rights"  in the European Court of Human Rights" 

I call your post right wing, xenophobic, uninformed <deleted>.

[Theforgotten1]

Criminals rights are usually put before victims rights

[candide]

2 hours ago, Theforgotten1 said:

European Court of Human Rights , is rights for criminals and no rights for honest law abiding people. 

Complete B.S.

[candide]

6 hours ago, jippytum said:

This is why Britain must leave the European Court of Civil Rights.

Convicted illegal immigrants and far left lawyers are making a mockery of justicr and common sense. 

On top of this court not being of "civil rights" , this is irrelevant, as in this case the decision was made by a UK court.

[G_Money]

Seems to be quite a few Trumper equivalents in the UK.

 

 

[jippytum]

38 minutes ago, candide said:

On top of this court not being of "civil rights" , this is irrelevant, as in this case the decision was made by a UK court.

Yes and  UK lawmakers are held to account  by the Euopean statute on human rights. That is why following Brexit we should leave the UC HR 

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, jippytum said:

Yes and  UK lawmakers are held to account  by the Euopean statute on human rights. That is why following Brexit we should leave the UC HR 

You need to get over this leaving the ‘E’CHR.

 

It ain’t going to happen.

 

The UK Government has better advisors than people who think UCHR is a thing. 

[The Old Bull]

The problem is most laws are written by lawyers for lawyers. When a scumbag is ordered deported he should be taken directly to the airport not even stopping at the 7/11 for a toothbrush. If he wants to appeal he can do it from outside of the country using his own money to pay his lawyer. That will never happen as long as laws are written by lawyers for their own benefit.