Deporting criminal would ‘hurt his son's mental health'

Telegraph

a day ago

A convicted Pakistani criminal can stay in the UK after a judge ruled his deportation would damage his son's mental health.
The father of two was jailed for more than two years for holding false identity documents after living in Britain for 18 years, an asylum tribunal was told.
The Home Office decided to deport him, yet he has successfully appealed under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that his son would not be able to get the same mental support in his home country.
The court was told his 14-year-old son's mental health had deteriorated during his father's time in prison and would only get worse should be deported.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their removal.
Ministers are proposing to raise the threshold to make it harder for judges to grant the right to remain based on article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the right to a family life, and article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The 56-year-old Pakistani national, who entered the UK in 2007 as a visitor, is married and has two children, aged 14 and 10.
His wife suffers from depression and is undergoing therapy for chronic low mood, high anxiety levels and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.
In February 2020, he was convicted of possession of false identity documents and sentenced to 28 months in prison.
The Home Office decided to deport him but he launched legal action claiming the move would be 'unduly harsh' on his family.
The lower tier tribunal judge accepted the claim by the man, known only as AA, saying he was genuinely remorseful and had a low risk of reoffending. The Home Office appealed the ruling.
However, the upper tribunal was told by a psychologist that his eldest child was vulnerable and would be 'significantly affected' by his father's deportation. It was likely to worsen his 'extremely elevated levels of anxiety, depression and stress'.
'Should the child be forced to leave the UK with his family, the detrimental impact on his mental health would likely be profound,' the psychologist told the tribunal.
'He has a lack of family support in Pakistan, speaks limited Urdu and there are difficulties he would face adjusting to a different educational and cultural environment and the absence of his established support network leading to increased feelings of isolation, which could trigger self-harming behaviours.'
Children's interests 'primary consideration'
Another psychologist added: 'While I am not familiar with the conditions in Pakistan for children, as a UK-based psychiatrist, I would anticipate his mental health would deteriorate if removed from the UK and required to live in a country where he does not want to reside.'
The Home Office argued that it would be 'extraordinary to imagine there being a scenario in a deportation case where a child would not feel disappointed by the prospect of his family departing the United Kingdom'.
However, Judge Sarah Pinder, sitting on the upper tribunal, ruled in the criminal's favour.
'I must have regard to the children's best interests as a primary consideration,' she said.
'I am satisfied that [AA] has demonstrated, through the submission of medical, expert and country background evidence, that the health and needs of his eldest son in particular will be exacerbated upon any return to Pakistan.
'Expecting the eldest child to accompany the appellant to Pakistan would have a profoundly detrimental impact on his mental health.
'With the eldest child's needs, I do not consider that a move to Pakistan for him would just be merely uncomfortable, inconvenient, undesirable or just difficult. Rather, I am satisfied that, for him, such a move would be unjustifiably severe and would meet the threshold of 'unduly harsh'.'