Why can’t Britain deport foreign paedophiles?

This isn’t a trick question; all too often, the headlines are dominated by stories of heinous criminals whose deportations are blocked on spurious pretext. Just days ago, news broke that a Congolese paedophile who had sexually assaulted his own stepdaughter had been allowed to remain in the UK on human rights grounds.

The man, known as “MD”, had arrived in the UK in 2008, as an asylum seeker from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He was thirty-six years old at the time, and settled in the Glasgow area. His bid for asylum was rejected — and yet, in 2014, he obtained leave to remain, on the grounds that he’d started a family in the UK.

Despite the fact that the Home Office had determined that he should not be in the country, MD was able to get legally married, become stepfather to his wife’s daughter, and father a child of his own, who was born in 2012. The Home Office has offered no explanation as to why the man was not removed from the country between 2008 and 2014.

Since 2014, MD has had two more children of his own. In 2022, he was convicted at Glasgow High Court for the violent sexual assault of three young girls — namely, his own stepdaughter and two of his wife’s nieces. For this heinous crime, which will scar the lives of these young girls for decades to come, he was sentenced to just three years in prison.

A notice was issued for his deportation in August 2022; MD protested the move on two grounds. First, he argued that he was likely to be persecuted for his political views if deported. The first-tier tribunal, which hears immigration appeal cases, rejected this argument, finding that the man was not entitled to refugee status on the grounds that he was a serious criminal.

But MD’s second argument was accepted. His deportation was blocked on the grounds that it would interfere with his right to a “private and family life” under the Human Rights Act 1998; a right which itself derives from the European Convention on Human Rights. MD’s third son suffers serious behavioural issues, including autism, and his wife is apparently reliant on his continued support. This, according to the first-tier tribunal, was sufficient grounds to keep MD in the country, despite the fact that he had sexually assaulted his own stepdaughter. “Right to a family life” indeed.

Somehow, the story gets even worse. In the UK, we assess whether decisions are in breach of “private and family life” using reports from so-called experts known as Independent Social Workers. ISW reports are now part and parcel of the immigration system in the UK; as you can imagine, these reports tend to recommend that families remain together. They are generally not interested in the Home Office’s efforts to protect our borders and maintain our laws.

As you can also imagine, the state is often on the hook for the considerable fees charged by ISWs — after all, those protesting immigration decisions are not typically flush with cash. One firm advertising ISW services charges around £2,600 per report, including attendance at court.

Given these steep fees, and the severity of the issues involved, you might expect ISWs to conduct thorough and comprehensive research on each case. In fact, the ISW in MD’s case did not even consider the wellbeing of the man’s stepdaughter, speaking only to the perpetrator and his wife. If the ISW was primarily interested in child welfare, rather than in preventing deportations at any cost, one might expect them to have spoken to MD’s children and stepchildren. 

Even more bluntly, somebody with an impartial interest in child welfare shouldn’t seek to keep a convicted paedophile in the country. The state is paying activist social workers to frustrate the Home Office’s efforts.

A horrific criminal has been allowed to remain in this country, having already wrought untold misery on the lives of three young girls

Fortunately, the Home Secretary has successfully appealed this decision, meaning that MD’s case will be heard again with due regard given to his stepdaughter’s wellbeing. To call this case a comedy of errors would be to underplay its profound tragedy. A horrific criminal has been allowed to remain in this country, having already wrought untold misery on the lives of three young girls, despite being declared a “risk and a danger” to the public by the very tribunal which blocked his deportation. Who knows if this man will offend again?

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. Anicet Mayela, also Congolese, was recently sentenced to ten years in prison for raping and impregnating a 15-year old girl in Oxford. Back in 2005, Mayela’s deportation was blocked on human rights grounds. In late October, the headlines were dominated by the story of an Indian paedophile, known as HS, whose deportation was blocked by the Home Office on the grounds that removing him from the country would interfere with his “right to a family life”.

These outcomes are not an accident; they are the logical conclusion of successive decisions made by politicians, officials, and judges. This is a political problem with a political solution. Our domestic human rights infrastructure must be revised entirely, with the Human Rights Act repealed and immigration decisions exempted from review by judges or tribunals. It goes without saying that the system of rent-seeking Independent Social Workers must end. As our asylum system comes under increased pressure, we cannot allow layers of bureaucracy to frustrate attempts to remove foreign criminals.

Inevitably, maintaining law and order in this country will mean making unpleasant decisions. Sometimes, it will mean forcing families to choose between separation and leaving the country altogether. If MD is deported, his family will need to choose between remaining in the UK without him, or moving to the Congo with him. On a personal level, this is undoubtedly an unpleasant choice.

At times like these, we must remember that the majority of law-abiding Britons have rights too. They have a right to safe streets, and to a state which respects their wishes. They have a right to live their lives free from the tyranny of rampant criminality; young girls in this country have a right to know that we are not actively keeping foreign paedophiles in this country. As a nation, we have a right to enforce our laws and protect our borders — no legal doctrine, however noble in intention, can supersede this basic exercise of national sovereignty.

By taking decisive action against a criminal few, we create a better society for the law-abiding many; this is even more true in cases of foreign criminals. We already have plenty of bad actors here in Britain — we can do without importing more from the rest of the world. It’s time for our politicians to get serious about the human rights crisis in our asylum system. Parliament must legislate to reform the whole rotten structure, bringing respect for the British people back into the Home Office.