A Jamaican national convicted twice for heroin dealing has successfully avoided deportation from the UK, citing violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The 39-year-old man, whose identity has been withheld, argued that deportation would breach his right to family life and expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment in his homeland.  

 

The man came to the UK at the age of 16 in 2001 and overstayed his visa. Arrested in 2006 for immigration violations, he later faced convictions for drug offences, including an 18-month sentence in 2011 and a 30-month sentence in 2020 for dealing heroin. Despite his criminal record, his appeal against deportation has prompted the case to be reconsidered by an upper tribunal.  

 

The Jamaican claimed to have suffered abuse in his childhood and argued that returning to Jamaica would endanger his safety and well-being. He also stated that he was a victim of trafficking in his home country before migrating to the UK. The upper tribunal ruled that the initial hearing failed to account for all the evidence and denied him a fair trial by proceeding in his absence, despite his claim of illness.  

 

The Home Office had previously served the man with a deportation order in 2020, describing him as a “danger to the community” due to his repeated involvement in serious drug offences. However, under Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, the man contended that deportation would violate his right to family life and subject him to potential harm in Jamaica.  

 

The decision has sparked criticism, with many calling for a reassessment of the UK's relationship with the ECHR. The case follows a similar controversy involving a Turkish drug dealer who avoided deportation after arguing that it would violate his human rights. The 70-year-old Turkish man, also granted anonymity, had been jailed for 16 years for plotting to distribute heroin across the UK. He claimed persecution as an Alevi Kurd if deported to Turkey, despite evidence of multiple trips back to his homeland without incident.  

 

The UN Refugee Agency supported the Turkish man’s claim, despite the Home Office’s stance that his continued presence was not in the public interest. Critics argue that cases like these undermine public confidence in immigration enforcement and the justice system.  

 

The Jamaican man’s case will now be reconsidered, raising questions about the balance between human rights protections and public safety. While the upper tribunal’s ruling emphasized procedural fairness, critics argue that the man’s criminal history and the danger he poses to the community should weigh heavily in any final decision.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-12-23

 

 

 

Give him a ticket to Thailand, no visa required, can start a new life, open a weed shop ( very Jamaican)  ....oh wait ..there's no government benefit ...well forget that idea then.

This is what is wrong with the UK and ECHR, he should be deported immediately, he had his chance and blew it?

 

"Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, the man contended that deportation would violate his right to family life and subject him to potential harm in Jamaica"

 

Allowing him to stay in the UK, subjects UK people to potential harm!

If someone is ordered deported they should be taken straight to the airport not even stopping at the 7/11 for a toothbrush but then the lawyers would not get to feed.  Releasing deadbeats into society guarantees the court system will always have work, lawyers,judges, court workers ,probation officers etc. It's surprising how many people one scumbag can keep employed.

I wonder if he has been assisted by none British heritage type,  lawyers. 

 

 

The ECHR is a joke. It's a shame it's so difficult to leave. 

do the crime, do the time

 

apparently many crimes

 

no need for appeal but europe is doomed... 

This is exactly why I am going to play the system and take my thai wife to the UK and apply for her not to be deported and completely ignore the monetary income or savings required for a settlement visa.

 

Going to claim I am getting forgetful and she is my wife and carer and it would be inhumane to me for her to be deported !

 

 

Can you really believe this injustice

.  So many similsr cases when the UK Are forced to keep and provide legal aid and other beniflts for convicted immigrant criminals with multiple serious convictions because of rulings by a foreign court. 

We should be allowed to deport convicted criminals if ordered to do so by British courts. 

Any UK citizen that supports these woke rulings by ECHR  are misguided morons. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, jippytum said:

Can you really believe this injustice

.  So many similsr cases when the UK Are forced to keep and provide legal aid and other beniflts for convicted immigrant criminals with multiple serious convictions because of rulings by a foreign court. 

We should be allowed to deport convicted criminals if ordered to do so by British courts. 

Any UK citizen that supports these woke rulings by ECHR  are misguided morons. 

 

 

 

The ECHR is not fit for purpose now, it's out of date.

allowing criminals and the like to game our system. 

 

Maybe Starmer and Trump could jointly hire Rodrigo Duterte as their Drugs Tzar, giving him and his hand-picked team the same level of prosecution protection as he had in the Philippines?  Might create a few issues but boy would it solve many more.  Permanently.

12 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

Maybe Starmer and Trump could jointly hire Rodrigo Duterte as their Drugs Tzar, giving him and his hand-picked team the same level of prosecution protection as he had in the Philippines?  Might create a few issues but boy would it solve many more.  Permanently.

Starmer is a lawyer, and will side with the ECHR every time.

1 hour ago, phetphet said:

Starmer is a lawyer, and will side with the ECHR every time.

 i agree anything to to advance his pro European stance

2 hours ago, phetphet said:

Starmer is a lawyer, and will side with the ECHR every time.

Not sure I wholly agree; plenty of lawyers might take an opposing view.  Maybe as he's a liberal lawyer rather than more right of centre.  I get your point though.

Why was he even allowed to appeal to the ECHR. especially as his crimes were committed in the UK, and even more especially as the UK is not even a member of the EU any more?

9 hours ago, Social Media said:

The 39-year-old man, whose identity has been withheld, argued that deportation would breach his right to family life and expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment in his homeland.

 

It does seem odd that as a UK citizen living in Germany, the German authorities have no legal right to prevent my Thai wife living with me*......but the UK authorities will do everything in their power to prevent her living with me in the UK.....or at least make it extremely arduous for her to move there.....totally ignoring the right to a family life.

 

*Pre-Brexit.....the gift that keeps giving.

13 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Why was he even allowed to appeal to the ECHR. especially as his crimes were committed in the UK, and even more especially as the UK is not even a member of the EU any more?

The ECHR is not an EU institution. It's an institution of the 'old' Council of Europe. If I remember well, its creation has been trigged by Churchill.

Just now, candide said:

The ECHR is not an EU institution. It's an institution of the 'old' Council of Europe. If I remember well, its creation has been trigged by Churchill.

 

"They" hate that answer.

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Why was he even allowed to appeal to the ECHR. especially as his crimes were committed in the UK, and even more especially as the UK is not even a member of the EU any more?

 

UK was still a signatory to the Treaty. Leaving EU did not abrogate the UK obligations under the treaty.

 

3 hours ago, phetphet said:

Starmer is a lawyer, and will side with the ECHR every time.

 

Nonsense. A barrister and/or solicitor is expected to represent the  best interests of their client.

In government policy, a government must decide based upon  the impact the law will have on national interest and the potential for harm to UK nationals. Sometimes a bad  outcome is accepted if it  prevents a precedent being set that could harm UK national interest of government policy. Sometimes  the decision is made for political  reasons to placate important  voter blocks.

In this case, the government is obliged to respect the ruling because of its being a treaty participant. Conservative government could have given notice of leaving the treaty, but did not.

7 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

"They" hate that answer.

 

It was created in the aftermath of WW2 as an early warning system to identify and halt the re-emergence of a totalitarian system of government.   It wasn't set up to prevent the deportation of career foreign criminals on spurious grounds.   There are many countries signed up to this treaty that completely ignore their ridiculous judgements (Hungary and Poland being prime examples) and there are no consequences for ignoring their judgements.  Keeping this criminal in the UK is a choice, a bad one, made once again by the moronic clowns in government.  

5 hours ago, quake said:

 

The ECHR is not fit for purpose now, it's out of date.

allowing criminals and the like to game our system. 

 

The ECHR can only rule on the administration of law the under the Human Rights Convention that Britain and Winston Churchill in particular helped draught.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

It was created in the aftermath of WW2 as an early warning system to identify and halt the re-emergence of a totalitarian system of government.   It wasn't set up to prevent the deportation of career foreign criminals on spurious grounds.   There are many countries signed up to this treaty that completely ignore their ridiculous judgements (Hungary and Poland being prime examples) and there are no consequences for ignoring their judgements.  Keeping this criminal in the UK is a choice, a bad one, made once again by the moronic clowns in government.  

It’s not a choice made by Government, the matter resides with the courts.

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

Why was he even allowed to appeal to the ECHR. especially as his crimes were committed in the UK, and even more especially as the UK is not even a member of the EU any more?

Because the UK is a signatory to the Convention.

 

You too, and any member of your family in the UK would have the right appeal to the ECHR if you or their rights were being violated.

 

 

6 hours ago, quake said:

I wonder if he has been assisted by none British heritage type,  lawyers. 

 

 

There’s a thin veneer on that.

11 hours ago, Social Media said:

A Jamaican national convicted twice for heroin dealing has successfully avoided deportation from the UK, citing violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The 39-year-old man, whose identity has been withheld, argued that deportation would breach his right to family life and expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment in his homeland.  

 

And it was a Turk last week

 

Quote

Drug dealer spared deportation to country he returned to 8 times

A 70-year-old convicted of conspiracy to supply heroin said return to Turkey would breach right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights

 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drug-dealer-spared-deportation-to-country-he-returned-to-8-times-x8fllwbns

 

Time to suspend membership of the ECHR, until it is re-written and fit for purpose.

 

And if that cannot be done, bin it completely.

15 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

And it was a Turk last week

 

 

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/drug-dealer-spared-deportation-to-country-he-returned-to-8-times-x8fllwbns

 

Time to suspend membership of the ECHR, until it is re-written and fit for purpose.

 

And if that cannot be done, bin it completely.

It’s not going to happen.

 

 

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not a choice made by Government, the matter resides with the courts.

 

So when Hungary or Poland (rightly) ignore an unenforcable judgement made by an unelected activist judge what should their punishment be in your opinion?  Should there be a punishment?  Or as sovereign nations should they be able to decide that if they want to deport a foreign criminal they should be able to do so?  

 

The clowns in this government (and the last) hide behind these unelected judges as they are cowards who put the interests and safety of the British people behind that of foreign criminals.  There should be no higher court than the UK appeals court and any judgements received by the ECHR should be at best seen as advisory and heard after the deportation has already taken place.   

7 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

So when Hungary or Poland (rightly) ignore an unenforcable judgement made by an unelected activist judge what should their punishment be in your opinion?  Should there be a punishment?  Or as sovereign nations should they be able to decide that if they want to deport a foreign criminal they should be able to do so?  

 

The clowns in this government (and the last) hide behind these unelected judges as they are cowards who put the interests and safety of the British people behind that of foreign criminals.  There should be no higher court than the UK appeals court and any judgements received by the ECHR should be at best seen as advisory and heard after the deportation has already taken place.   

The ECHR could not punish Hungary but the ECJ of the EU could fine it (€200 million).

9 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

So when Hungary or Poland (rightly) ignore an unenforcable judgement made by an unelected activist judge what should their punishment be in your opinion?  Should there be a punishment?  Or as sovereign nations should they be able to decide that if they want to deport a foreign criminal they should be able to do so?  

 

The clowns in this government (and the last) hide behind these unelected judges as they are cowards who put the interests and safety of the British people behind that of foreign criminals.  There should be no higher court than the UK appeals court and any judgements received by the ECHR should be at best seen as advisory and heard after the deportation has already taken place.   

 

I know it might be a bit of a revolutionary idea but I think they should abide by their own laws and the international conventions they have signed up to.

 

 

6 hours ago, jippytum said:

Can you really believe this injustice

.  So many similsr cases when the UK Are forced to keep and provide legal aid and other beniflts for convicted immigrant criminals with multiple serious convictions because of rulings by a foreign court. 

We should be allowed to deport convicted criminals if ordered to do so by British courts. 

Any UK citizen that supports these woke rulings by ECHR  are misguided morons. 

 

 

Between 2010 and 2020, the UK deported approximately 50,000 foreign national offenders (FNOs), averaging around 5,000 deportations per year.

 

In 2023, just under 4,000 foreign offenders were removed from the UK, marking the highest number in four years, though still lower than the peak of 6,437 in 2016.

 

A fair few do get their ticket home.