Now this is clever

A foreign sex offender has been allowed to remain in Britain because of his “right to family life” with his two young children, even though they are about to be adopted.

Judges ruled that Vincent Gnanasiri Cyril, from Sri Lanka, had proved a human rights case to avoid being deported – and that it was “entirely legitimate” for him to stay here even though the children will have no contact with him when they are placed with a new family.

It’s stupid of course, but it’s also terribly clever. That lawyer must be hugging himself with glee.

19 comments on “Now this is clever

  1. British judges, eh?

    It’s easy to blame Labour, but Labour isn’t to blame for perverse judicial interpretation of the Human Rights Act.

    The problem lies with our judges and their softness on criminals in general and determination to keep foreign scumbags in Britain specifically.

  2. JuliaM – Normally I’m not much keen on the term “LibLabCon” that UKIP supporters use so much, but I think it contains a kernel of truth that applies here.

    The judiciary is as much a part of our establishment as the BBC or the civil service, and thus reflects the values of our establishment.

    In the olden days, that meant a preponderance of hang ’em, flog ’em judges who would happily send you down for nicking a loaf of bread, or maybe have you transported to Australia if you were a troublesome radical.

    These days it means mollycoddling criminals and making it almost impossible to remove foreign undesirables. In their bizarre worldview, deporting foreign crooks is a terrible punishment.

    I don’t think our learned judges have any specific party political advantage in mind when they behave as they do. It’s much worse than that. They are part of an elite that is fundamentally at odds with the values of the vast bulk of our society.

  3. I imagine he has been given only a reprieve while the adoption process runs its course.
    E.g. There might still be the possibility that the adoption falls through. As a matter of due process, he should be allowed to be here to participate in those proceedings.

    The article makes no mention of any of this but I would be surprised if it is not something like that

  4. I cannot help but believe that the demands for deportations are nothing really to do with an appreciation for justice. Many people dislike immigration on a mass scale. I do. But those people then see deporting criminal immigrants simply as a way to “send a few of the buggers home”.

    There is no logical particular reason why somebody who was previously entitled to live in teh country should be sent away for committing a crime. By residing here, they have become “our” problem. So I think the cries for deportations are not very honest ones. They’re not about what is just, or logical, just an expression of anti-immigration sentiment. You know, we can’t get rid of the other million but we can get rid of this bugger, kind of thing.

    This fellow seems to have got very drunk and done something stupid, for which he served a sentence deemed appropriate by the courts. The situation with his children is driven by something entirely different- the mental state of the mother. It is not clear why they are being forcibly adopted when the father could presumably care for them. So the question really is why the State are actively depriving him of a family life by taking away his family by force.

  5. What’s stupid is believing what you read in the Telegraph. The tribunal reasoned thus:

    In view of the fact that the children are to be placed for adoption, there is an argument for saying that their interest in the appellant remaining in the United Kingdom is now insignificant. However, this argument ignores two important considerations. Firstly, adoption will only take place (if at all) at some indeterminate point in the future when suitable adoptive parents have been identified. In the meantime, the children are entitled (and apparently wish) to maintain their limited contact with the appellant, the benefits of which were acknowledged by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, it ignores the difficulties that the children would face in seeking to be reunited with their father upon reaching the age of majority. These difficulties arise because a deportation order will have the effect of excluding the appellant from the United Kingdom for a period of up to ten years…

  6. Ian B – “There is no logical particular reason why somebody who was previously entitled to live in teh country should be sent away for committing a crime. ”

    Most countries deport foreign criminals, on account of the fact that they don’t want foreign criminals. There’s no particular reason why we should continue to extend the privilege of UK residency to non-citizens who won’t abide by our laws.

    “By residing here, they have become “our” problem.”

    If we deport him, he’ll no longer be our problem.

    “They’re not about what is just, or logical, just an expression of anti-immigration sentiment. ”

    For sure, it pisses people off that not only are our borders open to the world, but we can’t (won’t) even get rid of convicted criminals whose presence in our country is meant to be predicated on things like not committing crimes.

    According to the Torygraph:

    He indecently assaulted three women and a man when he was “very drunk”, the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber said.

    So, he should be kicked out of the country. If his kids want to keep in touch with World’s Rapiest Dad, there’s always Skype.

    Secondly, it ignores the difficulties that the children would face in seeking to be reunited with their father upon reaching the age of majority.

    What, they won’t have airports by the time those kids grow up? We should keep foreign sex offenders around for the sake of the future convenience of his children?

  7. Presumably we don’t want native criminals either. Where do we deport them to? Oh, we can’t.

    Like I said, I just think people are seeing it as an excuse to get rid of a few darkies because they’re frustrated by immigration policy. I just wish they’d come out and say it.

    As to “sex offences”, I think we’ve been over that hysteria enough times lately. I weep for the lost time when Englishmen had some sense of proportion.

  8. For sure, it pisses people off that not only are our borders open to the world, but we can’t (won’t) even get rid of convicted criminals whose presence in our country is meant to be predicated on things like not committing crimes.

    Thousands of offenders are removed annually.

  9. Ian B – “Presumably we don’t want native criminals either. Where do we deport them to? Oh, we can’t.”

    Exactly. So we have enough home grown problems without keeping around imported ones.

    “Like I said, I just think people are seeing it as an excuse to get rid of a few darkies”

    Yes, that’s why people object to foreign sex offenders being here – they’re racist.

    Ukliberty – much more work needs to be done.

  10. I didn’t say they’re racist. I’m saying a lot of people wish we’d had less immigration (I do, indeed) so they latch onto anything that will get rid of a few.

    I spose the basic thing here is that I’ve learned to be deeply cynical about people demanding various policies. They are frequently dishonest, as with for instance Temperance campaigners using the “health” angle when they don’t really care about that at all, they’re really trying to ban smoking (say) altogether and just use whatever arguments will creep them incrementally towards that goal.

    It’s also pretty dispiriting watching how the ideological term “sex offender” has been woven into the discourse now, but that’s what happens when a people reject the Enlightenment and sink back into emotive irrationalism. We used to have this idea that once you’ve served your time, you’ve paid your debt to society. Not any more. We might as well start stamping the Mark Of Cain on peoples’ foreheads.

  11. On the 8th December 2008, the respondent issued a second Notice of Liability for Deportation, to which the appellant’s representatives responded on the 1st January 2010. The reason why the respondent considered it necessary to repeat this process, bearing in mind the previous and apparently still extant deportation decision, remains obscure.

    Why nothing done in the year and a bit? Violent sex offender?

    The respondent made a second decision to deport the appellant on the 8th September 2011.

    Err, wassat? Another 21 months? The HO obviously can’t be seen as thinking this man is a serious threat to the wellbeing of British society in either a collective or an individual aspect.

    On the 10th January 2012, the respondent withdrew her second decision to deport the appellant

    Well, okay … Because of the kids?

    On the 4th March 2013, the respondent made a third decision to deport the appellant. Although we have been unable to find any record of it, we assume that this decision was subsequently withdrawn so that the position could be reviewed in light of the judgement of the Court of Appeal (below)..

    Not the kids, then? I’m getting confused now.

    On the 21st October 2013, the respondent made her fourth and final decision to deport the appellant. This decision is subject to the present appeal.

    I’m all in favour of deporting foreign offenders. Especially violent ones. “Double especially” 😉 violent sexual offenders. I’m also a little concerned about the way Article 8 is being ratcheted up by higher court or tribunal reviews.

    But, ffs, he’s been buggered about by the HO something chronic. Anyone going to take a bet no CS even gets a minor verbal reprimand over this disaster?

  12. Judges have to apply the law (yes, have to – they have embedded it light-years down into their psyche) so don’t blame them for doing so – blame whoever passed the law that you hate.

  13. Interested-

    I know I’m the resident rape apologist here, but from what I read, it seems to be not so much “violent sex offender” as “bloke who drank too much, made a total arse of himself, and paid the price with conviction and imprisonment”. He doesn’t seem to have repeated whatever he did (which in terms of “assault” probably meant some kind of persistent groping, considering he managed three women and one man in a relatively short space of time).

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.