See on Scoop.itEVF NEWS FEED

Efforts to deport a Thai murderer have failed because judges have ruled it would be ‘stressful’ for him to be returned to his home country. 

An immigration tribunal ruled that returning the man who moved to the UK from Thaliand at the age of 13 would breach his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Instead it ruled that he should be allowed to stay in Britain indefinitely even though he stabbed a friend to death in what the immigration tribunal called an ‘unprovoked attack.’

Tribunal judges also ruled that the man’s identity should be kept secret to protect him despite his criminal past and potential threat to the community. 

The 48-year-old killer moved to Britain with his mother in 1978 as a young teenager when she got a job at the Thai embassy.

Twenty years later he took a knife from the family home and a stabbed a friend to death in a drink and drug fuelled attack.

He admitted manslaughter at the Old Bailey and was sent to to a secure mental health unit but was released into the community in 2008 after serving less than a decade for the killing.

Two years later he suffered a ‘relapse’ and was returned to care. But in 2011 he was freed again and now lives in supported accommodation.

Now efforts by the Home Office to deport him have been blocked because it was judged that he had lived in the UK for too long to be expected to go home. 

The tribunal heard that as a result of his 36 years spent in Britain he had ‘extinguished’ links with his home country and that the move would cause him ‘stress.’

 

According to the Sun it said: ‘Adjusting to life in Thailand was likely to be a significant challenge for the appellant  after 36 years in the United Kingdom

‘He was vulnerable to stress and the social impact of a move to Thailand was likely to destabilise his illness.’

The Home Office appealed the decision to keep the killer’s identity secret but this too was rejected on the grounds that there was ‘no evidence’ the man posed a risk to the public.

 

Speaking yesterday a spokesman from the Home Office confirmed they had no plans to further challenge the judgement but said: ‘We do not routinely comment on individual cases.’

The news comes just a month after it was revealed that police forces up and down the country are defying national guidelines and protecting the identity of prisoners.

More than half of forces in England and Wales do not publish mugshots of offenders unless they have been jailed because of concerns and about data protection and the criminals’ human rights. 

This means that only a tiny proportion of the 1.2million convicted in criminal courts each year have their photos published.

This despite the fact that it is widely acknowledged that publicity can link offenders to other crimes and even prevent more from being committed. 

In one well known case from 2007 Derbyshire Constabulary refused to release photographs of two murderers who had fled from an open prison.

They argued that the pair were likely to have left the area and therefore posed no risk to residents so there was no need to identify them.

Pictures of Jason Croft and Michael Nixon were eventually published by another force.

In April this year the country’s most senior immigration judge ruled that a polish woman who killed her husband by repeatedly stamping on his head could not be deported from Britain because it would breach EU rules.

Theresa Rafacz, who arrived in the UK in 2007 claimed she ‘lost control’ when she returned home to find her alcoholic husband drunk when he was supposed to be caring for their three-year-old son.

Mr Rafacz died from blunt force trauma to the head in 2009 after his wife repeatedly stamped on his face and neck, breaking his nose and spattering her own clothing with his blood.

She pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was jailed for two years.Last year she was assessed as posing a ‘medium risk’ of re-offending.But Mr Justice Blake ruled that she could stay in Britain because her crime did not cross a ‘seriousness threshold’ under European law on the grounds that EU citizens can only be ordered out of the country if they have committed crimes in ‘exceptional circumstances.

Last month the Home Secretary Theresa May finally won her battle to deport Jordanian hate preacher Abu Qatada after an eight year legal fight that cost British taxpayers around £1.7million.

The costs, revealed in a letter by Miss May to the Home Affairs Select Committee in June included Qatada’s legal aid costs of £647,658.

Qatada – once dubbed Osama Bin Laden’s right hand man in Europe – lost his appeal against deportation in 2007 but has repeatedly used human rights laws to thwart his removal to face terrorism charges in his homeland.

Miss May on the other hand staked her reputation on being the Home Secretary that would eventually get rid of him. 

She finally secured his deportation by signing a fair trial guarantee treaty with Jordan in March and after more legal wrangling he was flown home from RAF Northolt in July.

See on www.dailymail.co.uk

Advertisements