A PAKISTANI man convicted of sexually assaulting a child under 13 will face a fresh deportation hearing after the Home Office successfully challenged a ruling that allowed him to remain in Britain, reported The Times.
The offender, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had initially won his case to stay in the UK after claiming he would face "inhuman or degrading treatment" if sent back to Pakistan due to his alcoholism.
The original tribunal judge, Leanne Turner, ruled last June that the man would likely face prosecution and imprisonment in Pakistan for his "uncontrollable alcohol consumption," as alcohol is banned for Muslims in the country. She decided that deporting him would breach his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
However, appeal judge Soraya Reeds has now overturned this decision, finding that Turner had "speculated" and "started from the assumption" that the man would continue drinking after deportation and subsequently be jailed.
"Given that there are likely to be Muslims in Pakistan who drink and possess alcohol, the assertion that all will be arrested, prosecuted and indeed receive imprisonment is not evidenced," Reeds said.
The man first came to Britain in 2010 and was granted residency through marriage to a British resident. Despite their divorce in 2018 following his conviction for assaulting her, he was allowed to stay because of his relationship with their British-born son.
Court records, however, revealed a pattern of serious offending. In 2020, he was jailed for a year after drunkenly assaulting emergency workers. While on bail for that offence, he committed another sexual assault. The Home Office issued a deportation order later that year.
In 2022, he received another one-year sentence for sexually assaulting a girl under 13, prompting his appeal against deportation on human rights grounds. During those proceedings, a psychiatrist noted his alcohol dependency, which reportedly developed after his divorce.
The man told the tribunal he would be "punished" in Pakistan, claiming authorities would likely imprison him in conditions that were "inhuman and degrading."
The Home Office successfully argued on appeal that it was the man's responsibility to "comply with the law" and "change his behaviour."
The case will now return to the lower tribunal for a fresh hearing.
