Latest news with #UpperTribunal
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Daily Mail
Albanian who beat man with umbrella before smashing his face on the pavement wins right to stay in UK after judge says attack was a 'one-off'
An Albanian who beat a man so violently with an umbrella that it disintegrated before smashing his face on the pavement has won his case to remain in Britain. Vangel Gkika, 50, won an asylum case after serving a two-and-a-half-year jail term for the 'brutal' assault. He faced deportation over the attack in 2020, but now the immigration court has ruled he can stay because it was a 'one-off'. Gkika was jailed after he travelled on the London Underground to a location where he knew his victim - a friend of his - would be and carried out the 'brutal' assault. His weapon, an umbrella, was used with so much 'force' it physically disintegrated and then Gkika smashed his victim's head on the pavement twice. His victim was traumatised and needed surgery. Gkika, who is a dual national of both Albania and Greece, is a painter and decorator and is based in Surrey. After a five-year delay, the Upper Tribunal has now heard his appeal against his deportation order. It was ruled that the father does not pose a 'genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat'. The Upper Tribunal heard that Albanian-born Gkika moved to the UK in 2013 after living in Greece for 22 years. In 2016, he carried out the 'sustained and violent assault' on a man who he had been having an ongoing dispute with. The panel heard he had known the man for many years as their mothers were friends and neighbours. In his witness statement, he said they were childhood friends and had grown up together in Albania. Bu, their relationship 'soured' and the pair exchanged several threatening and abusive messages to one another. Gkika said a 'bitter dispute' had arisen between them, which resulted in the assault. On the day of the attack, Gkika took the London Underground to an area where he knew his victim would be. The judgment states: 'He attacked him using an umbrella, which he used with such force that it disintegrated. When it did so, [Mr Gkika] took the man's head and banged it twice onto the pavement where he had been standing.' It was heard the victim needed surgery, having sustained a broken cheekbone and scarring to his face, and the following year he was still experiencing dizziness and anxiety. Gkika was set for trial in 2017 but he changed his plea at the last minute and he was sentenced to 32 months in jail. The judge also imposed a 10-year restraining order which is due to expire in 2027, it was heard. After he was released from custody, Gkika returned to live with his wife and children at their home in Surrey. The Secretary of State signed a deportation order against him in September 2018 as it was established that the 'personal conduct of the person concerned represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society'. After hearing evidence that Gkika was an 'aggressor', the official said his 'deportation was a justified interference with his right to freedom of movement'. Gkika appealed the decision to the First-tier Tribunal, but this was dismissed in March 2020. He again appealed it to the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. Upper Tribunal Judge Gaenor Bruce found the previous tribunal had made an error in law for several reasons. The judge said that 'significant' weight was placed in the earlier decision on the fact that Gkika had not completed any rehabilitation courses in prison. But, Judge Bruce heard that no courses were offered to Gkika, who was a first-time offender and 'not deemed a sufficiently high risk to justify the expense'. Judge Bruce also said that in the earlier proceedings, Gkika was asked to disprove that he 'posed a risk' - when actually this should have been a matter for the Home Office to prove. The judge said for reasons that remain unclear, nothing further happened in the appeal until this year. Lawyers representing the Home Office spoke of the 'brutal' assault, and referred to eyewitnesses who said they were surprised his victim had 'not lost an eye'. They said 'an aggravating feature of the assault was the use of the umbrella as a weapon'. Lawyers representing Gkika referred to comments from the trial judge, who sentenced Mr Gkika, and described the assault as an 'aberration' and that he was otherwise a 'model citizen'. Judge Bruce said that Gkika is self-employed as a painter and decorator, and has several 'glowing testimonials' from satisfied customers. They said his children have grown up in the UK and are now either at university or college, and that Gkika 'deeply regrets' his part in this violence, which was a 'one off'. Judge Bruce upheld Mr Gkika's appeal, meaning he will not be deported. The judge said: 'The offence was, on all the available evidence, quite plainly out of character and was indeed a 'one-off'. 'That is not to diminish the harm that it caused to the victim, or to in any way disagree that [Gkika] should have been sent to prison for a significant amount of time. He clearly should have been. 'The central question for me today is whether there is a 'genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat' in [Gkika] today being allowed to remain in the UK. 'There is no evidence at all that he is a risk to anyone other than the victim of the original assault, and in respect of that, the evidence amounts to this. 'I am satisfied that he understands only too well that any further offending, harassment or harm to his victim could see him facing deportation again, and the life he has built for himself and his family here destroyed.'
The Irish Sun
04-07-2025
- The Irish Sun
Murderer avoids deportation to Jamaica after judge said ‘he has an admirable work ethic'
A JAMAICAN murderer has won a human rights appeal to stay in the country after a judge said he has an "admirable work ethic". The unnamed killer has avoided deportation after an immigration court in Cardiff ruled key facts in the case had not been properly considered. Advertisement 4 He mounted a legal fight for asylum in Britain after the Home Office attempted to deport him Credit: Getty 4 Details of the murder were not specified Credit: AFP He mounted a legal fight for asylum in Britain after the Home Office attempted to deport him. The man - who has been in the UK since 1996 - lost an initial appeal against the decision to deny him asylum at a first-tier immigration tribunal. But his second appeal at the Upper Tribunal was successful, meaning the case is set to be heard again. A judgement explained that he committed murder, but details of the offence were not specified. Advertisement Read more News He has been through "offender management" during his rehabilitation and now shows an "admirable work ethic". The man also argued that he "feared" deportation because he would be targeted by Jamaican crime syndicate One Order. He claimed that his family home had been attacked by the gang, who shot his brothers and forced his sister into witness protection. The Jamaican accused the judge at the First-tier Tribunal of not properly considering his concerns. Advertisement Most read in The Sun Upper Tribunal Judge Sean O'Brien agreed that the man could be in danger if he were to return. He ruled that the First-tier Tribunal had "misunderstood" evidence given by the murderer and "overlooked" potential risks in Jamaica. Judge O'Brien added: 'The [First-tier Tribunal] judge had overlooked the fact that the core elements of the [Jamaican's] account were not challenged by [the Home Office]. "It had misunderstood [his] evidence about [his] family he claimed had been murdered because of gang retribution and when, and had given no apparent consideration to the attempts made to verify that [his] sister remained in Witness Protection. Advertisement Sun probe uncovers asylum seekers in hotels linked to string of rape cases "I agree therefore that the judge's findings on the credibility of the [Jamaican's] account of events in Jamaica involved the making of an error of law. "All in all, I cannot be satisfied that the judge would necessarily have found that the [Jamaican] would not be at risk from the One Order Gang had she taken a permissible approach to credibility." The One Order gang mainly operates out of Spanish Town - an area on the Caribbean island regarded as a hotbed for criminal activity. It is the latest in a string of cases where offenders have called on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), claiming they would face persecution if returned. Advertisement The judgement said: "[The Jamaican said] the judge had failed to take into account that the key facts were not disputed by the Home Office. "The judge was wrong to find [him] vague in naming the One Order Gang as the source of risk. "The judge misunderstood which family members had been murdered and when. "The judge failed to take into account the steps taken by and on behalf of the [him] to confirm that [his] sister was in the Witness Protection Programme." Advertisement It comes just months after an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in Britain after arguing his son did not like foreign chicken nuggets. An immigration tribunal ruled it would have been "unduly harsh" for the child to be deported to Albania with his father due to his sensitivity around food as well other "additional" needs. Father Klevis Disha, 39, successfully appealed his deportation at a lower-tier immigration tribunal in which his son's distaste for foreign chicken nuggets was listed as the only example of his food difficulties. The case also focused on his son's needs in regards to sensory issues and difficulties communicating emotions. Advertisement 4 It is the latest in a string of cases where offenders have called on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Credit: Getty 4 The One Order gang mainly operates out of Spanish Town - an area on the Caribbean island regarded as a hotbed for criminal activity Credit: AFP Advertisement
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Murderer cannot be deported because rival gang would kill him
A Jamaican murderer has avoided deportation after claiming he will be targeted by a notorious gang if returned home. The killer won a human rights appeal at an immigration court after telling of his 'fear' of the powerful One Order gang on the Caribbean island. The crime syndicate is said to be affiliated with the Jamaica Labour party and is accused of killings, extortion and drug dealing. The Jamaican man claimed his family members had been killed by the One Order, and his sister had to be put into a witness protection programme. The unnamed migrant – who has been in the UK since 1996 and committed murder – has mounted a legal fight for protection in Britain. He argued that Britain must grant him asylum and not deport him back to Jamaica on human rights grounds because he will be 'targeted' by the One Order. The Home Office tried to deport him and he lost an initial appeal against their decision at a first-tier immigration tribunal.. But, he has now won an appeal at the Upper Tribunal, which ruled he could be at risk from the gang if returned. The Upper Tribunal found the lower court 'overlooked' key concerns about potential dangers for him in Jamaica and did not properly assess his 'credibility'. It ruled that his case must be heard again. The case is the latest revealed by The Telegraph where foreign criminals have used Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim they would face persecution if deported. Ministers are planning to rewrite rules to make it harder to allow appeals against removal. The One Order gang is said to be responsible for hundreds of killings over its rivalries with other gangs. One of its leaders, Othneil 'Thickman' Lobban, was this year gunned down and killed by police, sparking a violent backlash that closed schools and businesses. The Upper Tribunal, sitting in Cardiff, was told that the unnamed Jamaican migrant seeking asylum 'fears being targeted in Jamaica by the One Order Gang' as 'his family have been targeted there'. He has been in the UK since 1996, mostly without leave to remain. A judgment said he committed murder but did not specify details, other than that he has been through 'offender management' during his rehabilitation and now shows an 'admirable work ethic'. The Jamaican argued that the first-tier tribunal judge had not properly considered key facts about his concerns about the One Order gang, which the Home Office had not disputed. His sister was in a witness protection programme while his brothers had been shot in Jamaica and the family home was attacked. Upper Tribunal Judge Sean O'Brien said the first-tier tribunal was mistaken in its ruling. Judge O'Brien said: 'The [First-tier Tribunal] judge had overlooked the fact that the core elements of the [Jamaican's] account were not challenged by [the Home Office], had misunderstood [his] evidence about [his] family he claimed had been murdered because of gang retribution and when, and had given no apparent consideration to the attempts made to verify that [his] sister remained in Witness Protection. 'I agree therefore that the judge's findings on the credibility of the [Jamaican's] account of events in Jamaica involved the making of an error of law.' Judge O'Brien cast doubt over elements of the migrant's claims and said because he has been away for so long, he may avoid being targeted. But he said because of the previous 'erroneous' and 'unsustainable' ruling, a fresh hearing must be held. 'All in all, I cannot be satisfied that the judge would necessarily have found that the [Jamaican] would not be at risk from the One Order Gang had she taken a permissible approach to credibility', the judge added. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Daily Mail
03-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Jamaican murderer wins bid for asylum after claiming he can't go home due to threats from notorious gang who killed his family
A Jamaican murderer has been granted asylum in the UK after claiming that if he returned home he would be targeted by a notorious gang who killed his family. The killer won the human rights appeal after explaining his 'fear' of One Order - one of Jamaica's most powerful gangs. One Order, which was established over 20 years ago, are said to be affiliated with the Jamaica Labour party and are accused of killings, extortion, and drug dealing. The unnamed Jamaican migrant, who has been in the UK since 1996, claimed that the crime syndicate shot his brothers and attacked their family home. Meanwhile, his sister had to be put into Witness Protection as a safety precaution. Due to the circumstances, the migrant won an appeal at the Upper Tribunal which ruled that he could be at risk from the One Order gang if he were to return. When the Home Office initially tried to deport him, he lost an appeal against their decision at the First-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. But the Upper Tribunal in Cardiff found that the First-tier Tribunal 'overlooked' key concerns about potential dangers for him in Jamaica and did not properly assess his 'credibility'. It was directed that his case must be heard again. A judgement said he committed murder but did not specify details, other than that he has been through 'offender management' during his rehabilitation and now shows an 'admirable work ethic'. The Jamaican argued that the First-tier Tribunal the judge not take properly consider his concerns about the One Order gang. In Jamaica, the One Order gang is based in the city of Spanish Town, which is in an area of Jamaica that is a hotbed for criminal activity. Earlier this year, the One Order's kingpin Othneil 'Thickman' Lobban was gunned down and killed by police, sparking a violent backlash that closed schools and businesses. Outlining his arguments, the judgement said: '[The Jamaican said] the judge had failed to take into account that the key facts were not disputed by the Home Office. 'The judge was wrong to find [him] vague in naming the One Order Gang as the source of risk. 'The judge misunderstood which family members had been murdered and when. 'The judge failed to take into account the steps taken by and on behalf of the [him] to confirm that [his] sister was in the Witness Protection Programme.' Upper Tribunal Judge Sean O'Brien said the First-tier Tribunal was mistaken in its ruling. Judge O'Brien said: 'The [First-tier Tribunal] judge had overlooked the fact that the core elements of the [Jamaican's] account were not challenged by [the Home Office], had misunderstood [his] evidence about [his] family he claimed had been murdered because of gang retribution and when, and had given no apparent consideration to the attempts made to verify that [his] sister remained in Witness Protection. 'I agree therefore that the judge's findings on the credibility of the [Jamaican's] account of events in Jamaica involved the making of an error of law.' Judge O'Brien cast doubt over elements of the migrant's claims and said because he has been away for so long he may avoid being targeted. But he said because of the previous 'erroneous' and 'unsustainable' ruling, a fresh hearing must be held. 'All in all, I cannot be satisfied that the judge would necessarily have found that the [Jamaican] would not be at risk from the One Order Gang had she taken a permissible approach to credibility', Judge O'Brien added.
Telegraph
01-07-2025
- Telegraph
Migrant with grey hair was 15 when he crossed Channel, tribunal rules
An Afghan asylum seeker who arrived in the UK with grey hair was a child at the time, a judge has ruled. An asylum court ruled that the migrant, who came to Britain via a small boat after three failed attempts, was 15 despite starting to go grey on the side of his head. Authorities in the UK found that he was an adult when he arrived, saying he had an 'established jawline and lack of youthful glow'. But an upper immigration tribunal has overturned that decision, ruling that the 'stress' of his journey from Afghanistan might have led him to go grey. The asylum seeker, who has been given anonymity, had lodged an appeal at the Upper Tribunal following the decision by East Sussex County Council that he was 18 when he entered the UK in October 2022 and claimed asylum. A tribunal judgment said: 'He claims to have left Afghanistan in or around August 2021. He travelled through various countries including Iran, Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland and France. 'Following three unsuccessful attempts to enter the UK, he arrived here by small boat on Oct 10 2022. 'In an interview with the Home Office shortly after his arrival, he explained that he had come to the UK 'for a better future, for better opportunities', that he would 'return to my country after I complete my studies in the UK' and that he had come here 'to support my family financially'.' Two weeks after arriving, he was placed with a foster carer by East Sussex County Council. A number of the council's social workers then conducted an age assessment because 'evidently there was some doubt as to whether he was as young as he claimed to be'. The judgment said: 'The assessors took into account that the [migrant] had been described as having an appearance older than his claimed age of 16, specifically some grey hair earlier in the report described as 'flecks' on the sides of his head and an 'established jawline and lack of youthful glow'. 'Furthermore, [he] had not grown out of his clothes or shoes during his journey to the UK and, by his own account, he had reached his 'adult height' before leaving Afghanistan in August 2021. He also appeared to have facial hair before starting his journey to the UK.' The assessors said his growth 'was not in keeping with that of other 16-year-old young men they had worked with'. They said his body was 'fully developed', he had 'established facial hair and body hair' as well as 'grey hairs which are in keeping with chronological ageing'. At the judicial review Upper Tribunal Judge Matthew Hoffman, criticised the council for relying on physical appearance. Judge Hoffman said: 'Physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for determining a person's age, and this is not a case where it is asserted that the [Afghan man] looks so much older than his claimed age that this can be considered to be a reliable indicator. 'We also find that little weight can be attached to the fact ... that he has some grey hairs on the side of his head. It is not impossible for a teenager to have some grey hairs, but it is unusual. However, it does not seem to us to be much less unusual for a 19-year-old to have grey hairs than a 16-year-old. 'That is especially the case here, where there appears to have been some acknowledgement by the assessors that this may have been the result of the stress caused on his journey to the UK and that other possible explanations include vitamin deficiency and genetics. 'We also attach little weight to the evidence that he was shaving before he came to the UK. As the age assessment itself notes, 'the presence of facial hairs was not an uncommon feature of adolescent males from his ethnicity'. Mother told him his age Judge Hoffman said the tribunal could work out his age based on what his mother had told him when he was younger. 'We find that the [Afghan man] has been broadly consistent with his account that his mother told him his age when he was 14 years old so that he knew that he would need to fast during the next Ramadan when he would be 15,' Judge Hoffman said. 'We find it more likely than not that he is telling the truth when he claims that he was 15 years old when he arrived in the UK. After careful consideration, we find it more likely than not that he was born during Ramadan in 2006.'
