An ISIS-supporting illegal migrant from Sudan has been granted the right to permanently reside in the United Kingdom after his lawyers successfully argued that deporting him to his homeland would endanger his human rights.
British judges have dismissed concerns raised by the Home Office about the threat posed by a Sudanese migrant who illegally broke into the country in 2005 and again in 2018 after previously being stripped of his British passport. According to security services, the migrant had actively spread propaganda for the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) and have granted him UK citizenship and lifelong anonymity.
Lawyers for the Sudanese national, who is only allowed to be referred to as “S3”, successfully convinced judges that deporting him would violate his human rights, as he would potentially face detention and torture should he return to the African nation, the Mail on Sunday reports. This argument apparently swayed the justices despite the fact that S3 has travelled back to his home country on multiple occasions without facing persecution.
The MI5 security service claimed that during one of his trips back to Sudan, a four-month stay starting in December 2016, the illegal migrant became active in spreading ISIS propaganda on social media. Therefore, the government argued that S3 posed a national security threat to the British public.
According to court documents seen by the MoS, MI5 stated that the Sudanese man “had demonstrated a commitment to the extremist ideology of ISIS” and that “there was a realistic possibility that [he] would seek to radicalise other individuals and encourage them to engage in Islamist extremist activities.”
The legal team for the illegal migrant cited the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in their arguments against his deportation. Despite leaving the European Union, the UK is still bound by the ECHR and its Strasbourg-based court, as it is technically a separate institution from the EU and therefore Britain’s membership was not affected by Brexit.
Brexiteers, including Nigel Farage and former Home Secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that the government of Rishi Sunak must exit the ECHR to finally deliver on the promise of taking back control of the nation’s borders. In February, it was reported that the ECHR was used as justification to prevent the government from deporting at least 53 convicted terrorists.
Due to the ruling this month, the suspected Islamist will be free to remain in the country for as long as he wishes and those who live around him will have no right to the knowledge that they may be living alongside a potential terrorist.
Condemning the decision, former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith said: “This is ridiculous. Judges ought to understand when the Security Services make it clear that someone poses a danger to the British public, he has forfeited his human rights with regards to staying in the UK.”
The chairman of the Migration Watch UK think tank, Alp Mehmet added: “Either our immigration judges are totally gullible or they derive a perverse pleasure from siding with chancers, crooks and terrorists, and putting their interests before those of the British people. If terrorists are to roam freely among us, we have a right to know who they are and what harm they could potentially do.”
British judges have a long and sordid history of blocking deportations of foreign criminals and terrorists. In one controversial example, UK judges stopped a deportation flight of most Jamaican criminals, including a convicted killer and a rapist, as they were briefly refused access to mobile phones during their detention.
For example, a deportation flight full of mostly Jamaican criminals, including a killer and a rapist, was blocked in 2020 by British judges because the migrants were temporarily refused access to mobile phones while they were being detained.
Later that year, a judge in Scotland decreed that a Taliban terrorist should not be deported to Afghanistan as he suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from fighting in the war against Western allies — potentially including British soldiers — and therefore should receive free healthcare in the UK as the same level of care was not available in his home country.