Now judges make it even harder to kick out foreign criminals

They say ‘deport first, appeal later’ rule breaches human rights law

THERESA May’s attempt to deport foreign criminals without long and expensive appeals was dealt a blow by the Supreme Court yesterday.

Judges ruled that under human rights laws two drug dealers should not have been thrown out of Britain before they had a chance to appeal.

The decision, in a test case over Kevin Kiarie, a Kenyan citizen, and Courtney Byndloss from Jamaica, found that both men were removed from Britain before they could mount an effective appeal.

The ruling undermines the 2014 Immigration Act that introduced a ‘deport first, appeal later’ system designed to speed serious criminals on their way out

‘Face formidable difficulties’

of Britain and allow them to appeal only when back home.

Five Supreme Court justices ruled that the system was unfair to Kiarie, jailed for two years in 2014 for dealing hard drugs, and Byndloss, sentenced to three years for a similar offence in 2013. This was because they could not appeal effectively once they were out of England.

The ruling said deportees could not give appeal evidence by video link from abroad because the cost and practicalities of doing so presented insurmountable barriers.

This breached Article Eight of the European human rights charter, which guarantees respect for private and family life, the judges said. Lord Wilson said of the ‘ deport first’ process: ‘The proper analysis is that the Home Secretary has failed to establish that it is fair.

‘For their appeals to be effective, they would need at least to be afforded the opportunity to give live evidence

‘They would almost certainly not be able to do so in person. The question is: as a second best, would they be able to do so on screen? ‘The evidence of the Home Secretary is that in such appeals applications to give evidence from abroad are very rare.

‘Why? Is it because an appellant has no interest in giving oral evi- dence in support of his appeal? I think not. It is because the financial and logistical barriers to his giving evidence on screen are almost insurmountable.’

The case is the third reverse in just a week for the Government’s attempts to deport foreign crimi- nals. On Monday the Daily Mail revealed that an Al Qaeda terrorist caught with manuals detailing how to attack nightclubs and airports had been given £250,000 in legal aid to try to avoid being deported to Jordan.

Yesterday the Mail reported the case of Wilfred Mosira, a sex offender convicted at the age of 25 of offences with a 13-year-old girl. He won a claim to be able to stay in Britain in the Court of Appeal.

The refugee, who has been found to face no danger or risk at all if returned to his country, Zimbabwe, won his case on legal technicalities that judges said would make his deportation unfair.

Between 2014 and the end of last year 1,175 foreign criminals were

‘They have no place in the UK’

deported under the Immigration Act on the authority of deportation certificates issued by the Home Secretary. Only 72 had begun an appeal process from abroad. By February, not one of the appeals had succeeded.

Mrs May was Home Secretary when the law was passed and remained in post until she became Prime Minister last summer.

A spokesman for the Home Office, which is now led by Amber Rudd, said: ‘The Government has consistently taken the view that foreign criminals have no place in the UK, and we will continue to take action to remove them. We are disappointed by the judgment and are carefully considering the implications.’ Comment – Page 24

DeALING a hammer-blow to Mrs May’s efforts to hasten serious foreign criminals’ departure from Britain, the Supreme Court finds her ‘deport first, appeal later’ rule unlawful. No prizes for guessing why.

Ruling that hard-drug dealers from Kenya and Jamaica shouldn’t have been sent home without first being given the chance to appeal, the judges found this made it too difficult for them to claim their right to a family life in the UK.

how can we ever rid our country of such undesirables while the human Rights Act remains on the statute book?