Posted on November 21, 2011

Criminal ‘Babyfathers’ Dodge Deportation

David Barrett and Ben Leach, Telegraph (London), November 19, 2011

Fathering what one official called “a network of children” allows the immigrants to claim their right to a family life will be infringed if they are sent back to their homelands after serving time in prison.

The Home Office’s official recognition that the Human Rights Act is being manipulated in this way will fuel calls for reform of the controversial law.

The Sunday Telegraph has revealed a series of cases where Article 8 of the Act, which protects their “right to private and family life”, has been used by foreign criminals to overturn deportation.

Ministers are under growing pressure to institute reforms.

This weekend Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, said that a deal is imminent with other European nations to reform the European Court of Human Rights so that it deals only with “serious issues of principle”–although that in itself will not stop foreign criminals exploiting the right to family life.

The Home Office has now stepped up its warnings over the potential to exploit the laws.

Its officials warned a court about the phenomenon of what a judge described as “babyfathers”–a Jamaican slang for absent fathers–as it attempted to deport a criminal who had two children with two different mothers.

In a ruling which appears to offer confirmation that judges are accepting loose relationships as evidence of “family life”, the criminal–jailed for unlawfully wounding a man with a Samurai sword–was allowed to stay in this country because of Article 8.

The court ruled Darryl Byford-Noel, from St Lucia, enjoyed “family life” with his girlfriend and their son, and also said his daughter with another woman should be able to have contact with him.

Home Office representations to the court described how “some men arrange ‘a network of babies’ in order to resist deportation”.

Upper Tribunal Judges Richard McKee and Susan Kebede ruled that the Home Office “suggests that some men arrange a ‘network of babies’ in order to resist deportation, and that the appellant’s having two children will prevent him being a ‘full-time father'”.

But they said the criminal had two chldren in 10 years and said: “That is hardly a ‘network’ of babies arranged by a feckless ‘babyfather’.

“We see no reason why he should not have regular contact with his daughter, while being a full-time father to his son.”

Critics say there is mounting evidence that judges are “gold-plating” the law and going far further than they need to in human rights rulings.

They seized on an admission to MPs last week by the two most senior judges in England and Wales–Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the President of the Supreme Court, and Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice–that British courts were “ahead” of the European Court of Human Rights in the way they applied the “right to family life”.

Those concerns are highlighted again in a fresh case uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph in which a criminal who had three children by three different mothers within four months of each other was able to avoid being deported because of his “right to family life”.

In November 2009 at Snaresbrook Crown Court Lionel Noel Hibbert, 50, was handed an 18-month jail term for his role in a conspiracy to import 26lbs of cannabis.

Theresa May, the Home Secretary, ordered his deportation to Jamaica in January this year under rules which state that anyone jailed for over a year is automatically deported.

But Hibbert appealed, arguing that his human rights under Article 8 would be infringed if he was sent back to his homeland.

The immigration court heard he came to Britain in 1999 and quickly married, claiming leave to remain as the spouse of a British citizen, although the relationship ended in 2002.

He is now in a long-term relationship with Leone Simpson, a university canteen worker who was his partner in Jamaica and with whom he had had a son, who is now 18.

But in 2001 he had three children by three different women. He had a son in April, a daughter in June, then a daughter by Miss Simpson in August.

He claimed in court that he lived with Miss Simpson and was an involved father to his two children with her, and that all four of his children “got on well together”, with him picking them up from school, doing homework with them and the whole family spending summer holidays together.

The Home Office presented very little evidence to challenge Hibbert’s story and the judge, Senior Immigration Judge Jonathan Perkins, said: “I would like to have had independent evidence about the importance of the appellant in the lives of any of these children. There is every reason to be sceptical of the appellant’s account.

“On his own version of the story he is hardly an enthusiast for traditional family life and he has an incentive to exaggerate the evidence.”

But the judge went on: “The public interest in preserving the relationship between a father and his children is strong.

“His removal would be a disproportionate interference with the rights of his daughter with Ms Simpson and that is sufficient reason for me to allow the appeal.

“It would also be a disproportionate interference with the rights of the other three children.”

Last night one of his children’s mothers said Hibbert still had occasional contact with the child but added: “I was very upset to hear he’s been allowed to stay here.

“They should have sent him home. That was what I was wishing for, but my wish did not come true.”

Hibbert said last night: “I love my children. They are around here all the time. I live with two of them.”

Last month this newspaper revealed a similar case in which a violent Jamaican drug dealer, Gary Ellis, told a court he had a stable family life when in fact his ex-girlfriend said they split up four years ago and had since had almost no contact with their child.

It also emerged this week that a convicted sex attacker raped and violently molested two young girls while he fought deportation on human rights grounds. William Danga, 39, launched a legal battle using “family rights” after being released from a 10 year jail term for rape, then abused his first victim again and molested a seven-year-old.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: “We will always challenge suspect Article 8 claims, including where evidence suggests that a foreign national is seeking to enhance their claim to family life by building up a network of children.

“We rigorously defended our decision to deport these individuals and are disappointed by the court’s decisions.

“It is unacceptable that the Human Rights Act is being used to prevent removal of foreign criminals and immigration offenders.

“This is why we will change the immigration rules to prevent those abuses and ensure a better balance with human rights and the wider public interest.”

7 responses to “Criminal ‘Babyfathers’ Dodge Deportation”

  1. Stephen says:

    I think we should ensure there “right to family life” by deporting there children and other relatives with them.

  2. cpascal says:

    Even if these babyfathers were British, there would be good enough reason to keep thekm from seeing their children. Drug dealers, violent criminals, and men who have multiple women pregnant simultaneously are rarely good fathers. Not to mention the greater chance that the children will one day follow in his footsteps.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I continue to be amazed at the criminal mindset of third world illegals. They can think up and carry out most any type of crime to commit in this country, yet they seem to have no idea how to stay home and improve their conditions in their own country. If we had a government who thought more of us than they do of people who break our laws, the invasion could be stopped immediately. We need our military on our own borders. After all, this is war. We’ve been invaded for decades now and as a result we are a multinational, multilingual, country full of criminals

    who have no intention of becoming psrt of this country and we certainly don’t want them to. Just demand they go home as Eisenhower did, or face a long prison term.

  4. Anonymous says:

    “Right to family life” is a U.N. initiative.

  5. Ciccio says:

    There may well be a case for allowing a person who has a family to remain in the UK and specially in the UK it is the easiest thing in the world to prove. Is the government providing the housing and benefits for this family? In that case the government has a family, send the bum packing.

  6. Sardonicus says:

    Great, a bunch of mostly illegal black Caribbean “babyfather’s” go around formerly Great Britain and impregnate unmarried women, and then claim they can’t be deported because they have illegitimate children. We must be living in a Bizarre World to tolerate such behavior. The fathers should be deported for both immoral behavior and failure to support their children.

  7. Englishman says:

    This once rather uptight but generally decent, pleasant, orderly country is suffering from polysexual promiscuity on a scarcely believable scale and from an early age, and the liberal attitude towards ubiquitous porn plus a ridiculous welfare system does nothing to stop feckless reproduction, and consequently impaired children. Hardworking two-parent families are taxed to pay to keep these others in relative comfort and to outbreed them; a dysgenic process abetted by the usual soppy clergypersons of the so-called “Church” of “England”. Black babyfathers and Pakistani sex abusers add their dash of color to the mixture.

    Abortions in Britain are on a disgusting scale, but sexual irresponsibility continues unabated. Sex “education” in schools seems to have made matters worse. Teenage clubbing and internet usage are major factors in accelerated decadence.

    Frankly a strong hand is needed, dare I say it: Stalin plus Sterilization? The main obstacle to any such development rests with the liberal intelligentsia who hate family values and have now even resumed their campaign to legalise addictive brain poisons, aided by commercial interests like George Soros. The atomisation of humans into pleasure-seeking automata (with the help of communication technics) is a grave danger facing our race and civilization, and even a few thinkers on the “left” are feeling uncomfortable about the future.

    Once a society has sunk deep into fashionable depravity it can no longer recognise what is right or wrong, or if some people do, it is hard for them to escape.

    Amid the present welter of facts and opinions may I recommend three possibly marginal but historically important classics of scholarly research, whose very political incorrectness makes them hard to obtain: (1) J D Unwin, “Sex and Culture” (1934); (2) Steven Goldberg, “The Inevitability of Patriarchy” (1977); and (3) Robert Gagnon, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” (2001).