Rights Judges Halt Deportation of ‘Killer Monk’

David Barrett, Telegraph (London), September 15, 2013

Ministers are facing a fresh challenge on human rights grounds to their ability to deport foreign criminals.

They have been asked by European human rights judges to justify plans to return a convicted murderer to Bangladesh where he claims prison conditions are so poor his rights would be breached.

The move opens a new front in the row over the use of human rights by foreign criminals to defy attempts to have them removed.

It is the first time the Government has been asked by the court to justify deporting a foreign criminal on such a claim.

The case involves a Buddhist monk convicted in his absence of killing a man in Bangladesh.

The alleged killer, who can only be identified by the initials “SU” for legal reasons, came here as an asylum seeker and says he is innocent of the 2004 killing.

His appeal hinges on a claim that returning him to his homeland would amount to ill-treatment under Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment.

If his human rights claim is successful it could lead to more cases of foreign criminals claiming they cannot be deported to serve sentences in developing countries.

Last night, David Davies, the Conservative MP for Monmouth, said the case was “ludicrous”.

“I’m sure the prison conditions in Bangladesh are pretty poor but that is not the fault of the British taxpayer,” he said.

SU’s legal challenge has already passed the first stage in Strasbourg.

Court papers say he failed to surrender himself to a police station in Bangladesh and instead he fled to Dhaka.

He came to Britain in 2005 and two years later his lawyers informed him he had been convicted of murder in his absence and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.

The monk, who now lives in Sheffield, claimed asylum in 2010 but the Home Secretary rejected the case because of the delay in submitting the application.

British immigration judges backed the decision, and said the sentence he had received was lawful and did not amount to “any form of ill-treatment”.

SU’s lawyers lodged a further series of appeals to the immigration courts and to the Court of Appeal, which declined to hear the case.

In the paperwork to Strasbourg, they point out that British officials have previously warned that conditions in Bangladeshi prisons may breach Article 3 “in some cases”.

The Foreign Office must respond on behalf of the Home Office and the court will then consider whether to order a full hearing.

A Home Office spokesman said: “We will take all action to remove those who have no right to be in this country.”

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Spartacus

    “I’m sure the prison conditions in Bangladesh are pretty poor but that is not the fault of the British taxpayer,”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    It’s not their fault. Their fault is not lynching race-traitor scum like you !

  • sbuffalonative

    Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. The gods have set their focus on Britain.

  • Homo_Occidentalis

    This would be funny, were it not so tragic. The Britain of Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Cecil Rhodes is long dead. What has replaced it is something out of a mental asylum…

  • David Ashton

    Your POTUS says that terrorists shall have nowhere to hide. Ah, but there is always my once green & pleasant land, set in a silver sea, this other Eden, and seat of – judges subsersient to a spurious “human rights” (for criminals) racket.

    The UK Home Office “flagship e-borders programme” which has so far cost more than £500 million has yet to deliver benefits in controlling immigration and has had only a limited impact on tracking terrorists, according to an official watchdog report redacted by “home” secretary Theresa May. High profile alerts are not even being routinely used to stop high-risk terrorism suspects, war criminals and carousel ex-deportees from entering or re-entering Britain. 650,000 smuggling alerts were deleted. – “The Guardian” & other newspapers, October 9.

  • joesolargenius

    Well if I ever do something really bad I can just head for Britain and claim I am an Hispanic Cuban seeking sanctuary. (Intendes hermanos)

    • David Ashton

      Why not just head for us anyway – if necessary via some EU state? (Irony.)

      “The Government keeps no figures on how many EU nationals claim welfare payments in Britain… Nor can it give figures showing the number of fraudulent benefit claims.” – Daily Telegraph, Oct.8.

      “Between 13-22 per cent of the 37,000 members of the most significant crime networks came from overseas. In London, Scotland Yard says that 25 per cent of its most serious criminals are foreign national offenders. The Home Office said organised crime involved 5,500 groups and cost the UK £24 billion a year.”… “Organised immigration crime [costs] £1.04 billion a year.” – The Times, Oct.8.

      “The trafficking of foreign women to be exploited in Britain is worth at least £130 million…. Organised crime was responsible.” – Daily Telegraph, Oct.8.

      In the UK a billion is a million million, not a thousand million.

  • Jesse James

    What about the right of the native English to not be buried under a human mud slide of weird, violent foreigners?

  • me

    I thought that ‘Buddhist monks’ weren’t violent. So much for that false impression. If SU (why won’t they release the murderer’s name?) doesn’t want to be deported, fine. Let him rot in a British prison for the rest of his life. Prison, with no possibility of parole. Or, a firing squad. Either way, SU the monk should NOT live free. He’s committed a heinous crime and must be brought to justice.

  • Greg Thomas

    Sounds to as if Article 3 needs to be repealed on the grounds it amounts to ill-treatment of British citizens, who have been violated by diversity traitors in their own government.