Now the ECHR tells Britain that we cannot deport Somali paedophiles
The European Court of Human Rights and the conventions that set it up were originally intended to give individuals protection from the sort of dictatorial governments that afflicted Europe in the 20th Century. Unfortunately, what started out as eminently sensible protections against mass murder by Government have morphed over the decades into a ‘criminal protection service’.
We are now facing the utter madness of the court in Strasbourg telling Britain that it cannot deport a Somali paedophile, who has British convictions for rape and indecency with a child, because the Somali nonce’s ‘human rights’ take priority over anything else.
The ECHR seemed primarily concerned that the UK Government had locked this nonce up for public safety reasons prior to deportation and according to the Daily Mail, the court said that the Somali paedophile had his ‘right to liberty’ breached.
The Daily Mail said:
“A Somali paedophile has been given thousands of pounds by a human rights court – and released on to the streets.
Ministers have spent more than a decade trying and failing to deport Mustafa Abdi, who is thought to have cost taxpayers more than £600,000 in jail costs and legal aid.
But yesterday Strasbourg judges ordered the British government to pay the convicted child rapist thousands of pounds in damages and legal costs.
The court said Abdi was ‘wrongfully detained’ for two and a half years, breaching his right to liberty.
Ministers had decided he should remain in jail while awaiting deportation because he presented a ‘high risk’ to the public. But it emerged he was released from prison in January this year because there was no prospect of him being deported any time soon. “
What about our rights? What about the rights of British children not to be put at risk from this beast? What about the taxpayer who has had to foot the legal bill that Abdi ran up in an effort to avoid deportation, or even the welfare costs of supporting him in his new-found freedom to walk the streets? It is utterly disgusting that we allowed ourselves to be made subservient to a bunch of legal quacks in fancy robes to such an extent that now we cannot even rid ourselves of those who are a danger to our own communities.
The Daily Mail added:
“(Abdi )has spent around 13 years in jail and received tens of thousands of pounds in legal aid to help him thwart deportation.
Last night Home Office officials were still insisting they would ‘continue to seek to deport’ him – despite having failed to do so since 2002.
Abdi, who was born in 1975, arrived in Britain in May 1995. His asylum claim was rejected, but he was given leave to remain in Britain until February 2000.
In 1998 he was convicted of rape and indecency with a child and sentenced to eight years in prison.
In May 2002 David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, ordered his deportation – but Abdi made the first of several appeals.
While in prison he was assessed as presenting a ‘high risk’ of sexual offending if let out. As a result he was detained after his sentence was completed while ministers tried to deport him.
They were thwarted because no airline was prepared to fly him, or any other Somali nationals, back home against their will. Abdi refused to return home voluntarily.
In September 2006 he was given permission to apply for a judicial review of the decision to keep him behind bars.
He won his initial case, but the Court of Appeal ruled that his detention between December 2004 and June 2006 was lawful because he could have returned to Somalia voluntarily. He was let out in April 2007 but arrested again a year later after breaching his bail conditions by failing to report to police.
Ministers struggle to return Somali nationals home, even those convicted of heinous crimes, because of another ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.
Yesterday the same court overturned the British court’s ruling and said his detention was unlawful because regular case reviews did not take place.”
Was there any practical need for a ‘regular case review’? It would seem quite obvious to any reasonable person that Abdi is a wrong ‘un, a person who is ‘not conducive to the public good’ and deserved to be detained prior to deportation. Unfortunately it is not the ECHR judges who will have to live with the consequences of their decision, that price will most likely be paid by the children of any community that Abdi chooses to settle in.
Original Daily Mail story of Abdi the undeportable Somali paedophile