https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/03/jamaican-rapist-criminal-record-so-bad-cant-be-deported/
The Jamaican would probably be blocked from getting witness protection in his home country, putting his life at risk
A rapist’s criminal record is so bad that he cannot be deported back to his home country, an immigration tribunal has ruled.
The Jamaican, who was jailed for nine years for rape, cannot be returned because his criminal record would be likely to bar him from gaining witness protection in his home country.
The convicted sex attacker entered the programme in Jamaica as a teenager with his mother because she was a police informant who helped convict a gang leader of murder.
The Home Office tried to deport him because of his criminal record, but he successfully appealed his removal on the basis that he would not be allowed back into witness protection. He claimed it would put his life at risk from Jamaican gangsters seeking to avenge his mother’s role as an informant.
After his claim was rejected by a lower-tier immigration tribunal, he appealed and was backed by an upper court, which ruled his enforced return to Jamaica would breach his rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
This protects against persecution, degrading treatment and torture.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have attempted to halt their deportations, often by claiming breaches of their human rights.
There are a record 41,987 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour’s efforts to fast-track the removal of illegal migrants.
Risk of ‘psychological trauma’
The Jamaican, who was granted anonymity, entered the UK in 2001 as a visitor, after spending more than a decade in witness protection in Jamaica. His mother had been the main prosecution witness in convicting and jailing the gang leader for murder.He sought asylum in 2006, but while his application was pending, he was convicted of unlawful wounding and burglaries. He was sentenced to four years and eight months’ imprisonment in 2009. He was jailed for nine years for rape in 2013. After his release, he was recalled to prison in November 2022.
The Home Office first issued a deportation order in 2019 on the basis that his convictions excluded him from refugee protection. He appealed to a first-tier tribunal, which was told by Jamaican security ministry officials that it was highly likely he would suffer “harm” and a risk of “psychological trauma” if he returned.
The ministry said there was “no guarantee” he would be accepted back into witness protection, but the tribunal dismissed his claim on the basis there was a “real possibility” he would be allowed back into witness protection and not at risk as a result.
The Jamaican appealed the decision on the grounds that the tribunal had “failed to consider” his criminal record and mental health issues when deciding the likelihood he would be accepted into witness protection.
At the latest appeal, the upper-tier tribunal also had to decide if the lower court had used too high a standard of proof.
Upper tribunal Judge Leonie Hirst concluded that the standard of proof had been misapplied and allowed the appeal on the basis there was a “real risk” the rapist would not be allowed back into witness protection.
The judge said: “It was not in dispute that there was a real risk of harm to [him] from non-state actors, namely criminal gangs. Nor was it in dispute that the Jamaican witness protection programme would, if [he] was admitted to it, provide protection.
“The first-tier tribunal in this case erred by conflating the standard of proof to be applied to the Article 3 claim with the standard of protection to be provided by the state, and by applying the wrong standard of proof to [his] ability to access the witness protection programme.
“Given it was common ground that there was a real risk [he] would not be admitted onto the witness protection programme on return, the appeal would fall to be allowed.”
