But extremists’ henchman can stay here

A TALIBAN henchman suspected of murder in Afghanistan has won the right to stay in Britain on human rights grounds.

The 32-year-old, known only by the initials SAKA, has admitted that his father was in charge of 65 Taliban troops, but claimed he only agreed to join the terrorist group because he was worried about his safety.

Court papers reveal that he was arrested when he was caught trying to desert the Taliban, and accused of killing a provincial governor’s son.

The papers go on to say: ‘The appellant claims he then spent four years in prison but was never formally convicted. He claims he was tortured and beaten.’ SAKA alleges that he managed to escape from prison and eventually travel to the UK.

The Home Office was asked to consider whether he had actually been convicted of murder and whether his presence in Britain ‘constituted a danger to the community’.

The Afghan, whose identity has been kept secret by the courts, had an initial claim for sanctuary rejected by Home Secretary Theresa May. But immigration judges have now thrown out her decision and given SAKA permission to stay. It was ruled that deporting him would breach Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Experts said he would be ‘at risk of mistreatment and physical harm if he were arrested on account of being a suspected Taliban’. Hearing the case in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, Judge Helen Rimington ruled that if SAKA were sent home the Taliban ‘might be informed ’. He would also be at risk from the current Afghan government on the basis of his former membership of the Taliban, she said.

Last night a former British commander criticised the judgment and demanded a shake-up of human rights legislation so it could not be exploited by former insurgents. Colonel Richard Kemp, who led UK forces in Afghanistan, said: ‘Our blind adherence to European human rights legislation sees British soldiers who risk their lives to defend us hounded through the courts while this enemy fighter is allowed to stay here to threaten our country.

‘Our security at home already has enough challenges from jihadists returning from Syria without our own courts wantonly adding to our problems in this way. This case underlines the urgent need to change the law to prevent such dangerous absurdities.’