2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, convicted of a serious crime and in the UK illegally, had his deportation to Tanzania upheld despite his claims about the well-being of his family. The courts have generally held that the public interest in deportation outweighs the appellant’s individual circumstances, citing principles such as societal revulsion to serious crimes, the need for deterrence, and the assessment of potential risk.
Judgment
Lord Justice Bean:
Chronology
The appellant was born on 18 December 1971. On 17 January 1995, at the age of 23, he came to the UK on a student visa with leave to remain for 12 months. An application for further leave to remain was refused in 1996. From that point to the present day he has had no legal right to be in this country.
On 4 th August 1998 he made a claim for asylum, alleging that he was a Rwandan national and giving a detailed account of the persecution he had allegedly endured in that country. Also in 1998 he committed two road traffic offences: driving with excess alcohol, for which he was disqualified from driving; and later driving while disqualified, for which he served a short term of imprisonment.
On 13 th August 1999 a son, Y, was born to him and his then partner. The relationship broke up soon afterwards and for some time the appellant’s contact with Y has been limited to telephone calls.
In 2000 he met his present wife. They were married in a traditional ceremony. On 18 th February 2004 their son, X was born. In the meantime, however, on 24 th October 2003, the appellant had committed an offence of rape. The victim was a young adult woman, M. Following a trial in the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames before His Honour Judge Thomas and a jury the appellant was convicted, sentenced to six years imprisonment and recommended for deportation. The sentencing judge stated that the defendant had deployed his opportunities to get M into his car and then rape her “in a most unscrupulous fashion”, she having trusted him at the time as an older man. The judge said that the evidence showed that the victim had been very much upset for a long time, and perhaps would be permanently so in some degree, as a result of the crime.
On 9 th January 2006 the appellant was served with notice of the Secretary of State’s intention to deport him to Rwanda. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Tribunal on 24 th March 2006. Permission to appeal was refused, as was an application to the High Court for reconsideration. By July 2006 his appeal rights were exhausted. On 21 st November 2006 the Secretary of State made an order for his deportation to Rwanda.
On 26 th October 2007 the custodial period of his sentence for rape expired. He was transferred from prison to immigration detention. He twice refused to comply with the Emergency Travel Document process. On 18 th March 2008 an immigration judge granted him bail. We have not been s