Deporting migrant would ‘stress' him out, judge rules
A Somali criminal seeking asylum in the UK has avoided deportation after a judge ruled that returning him to his home country would cause him too much 'stress'.
The court found that the unnamed asylum seeker, who has been dependent on alcohol since 2006, would suffer stress if deported to his homeland, which would worsen his mental health.
Judges in the upper immigration tribunal ruled that this would amount to a breach of article three of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects against persecution and inhumane treatment.
His appeal was granted despite the Home Office arguing that the man, who had been jailed for unspecified crimes, would be able to secure the medication and treatment that he needed in Somali for his schizophrenia and auditory hallucinations, backed by funding from the department.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where failed asylum seekers 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 removal of illegal migrants.
The Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber was told the man – who was granted anonymity – moved to the UK in 1999 when he was 29. He told the tribunal that his family previously faced persecution as a result of their membership in a clan.
The man, who was accompanied by his support worker during the hearing, was said to have a 'high level of vulnerability' and 'complex needs' having experienced long-standing health problems. He has been 'significantly dependent' on alcohol since 2006 and has served time in prison.
'The severity of his mental health problems is closely linked to his stress levels and use of alcohol,' the tribunal said.
Lawyers representing the asylum seeker said he would have 'no real prospect' of returning to Mogadishu and making a living for himself. They emphasised that the financial support he would receive would be 'limited', and in any event, the man had a 'history of being financially exploited'.
This related to a time in his accommodation when he was 'targeted for money' by other residents after it became known that he was receiving disability benefits.
It was further argued that the assistance the man might receive from his clan would not constitute the kind of '24-hour support and monitoring' that he requires in order to meet his 'core vulnerabilities.' They said he would have to 'pay for his antipsychotic medication'.
Overall, they said his mental health would 'very quickly decline' if he were to return to Somalia, so much so that he would 'fall into destitution.' He said the man would likely end up in an internally displaced person camp featuring 'dire conditions' and the potential for violence.
Lawyers representing the Home Office argued that the humanitarian conditions in Somalia did not reach the threshold of serious harm. They said it would be rare for a person of his clan to be compelled to reside in the Internally Displaced Person [IDR] camp.
They said that schizophrenia is recognised as a mental health disorder in Somalia, which has 'some psychiatrists'. Ultimately, they argued the man would be able to access his medication and relevant psychiatric healthcare in his home country.
They said that this, coupled with the financial package offered through the Facilitated Return Scheme, believed to be of a sum of £750, meant the man would be able to access the required medication and support scheme.
The scheme encourages the early departure of foreign national offenders from the UK, by providing financial support for reintegration in their origin countries. Evidence from doctors suggested the man could 'become well' if he abstained from alcohol and complied with his medication.
Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Ian Jarvis said: 'I conclude that the weight of the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the [man] will very quickly become noncompliant with his medication.. without the 24/7 support and monitoring which he currently receives in the United Kingdom.'
Upholding his appeal, the judge ruled his mental health would 'seriously deteriorate' if he were to return to Somalia.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
MPs may have passed the assisted dying bill, but the debate is just beginning
Now that the assisted dying bill has passed its momentous third reading in the House of Commons, it may seem like legalisation in England and Wales is a done deal. But despite this significant milestone, the bill is not yet law and its journey through the House of Lords is far from a formality. While the terminally ill adults (end of life) bill is now closer than ever to becoming law, both the Commons and the Lords must agree on its final wording. And just like in the Commons, there are passionate supporters and vocal opponents in the Lords. Peers are expected to focus their attention on a number of outstanding, and controversial, issues. One of the biggest concerns that surfaced during both the report stage and today's third reading relates to the speed and process of drafting the legislation. Because this is a private member's bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, it was subject to strict timelines. Leadbeater had just 85 days to work with legal drafters and set out a policy framework before the bill was published ahead of its second reading in November 2024. Despite this, the democracy-supporting charity the Hansard Society has noted that the bill is 'among the most heavily scrutinised in recent times', and it could ultimately receive up to 200 hours of parliamentary debate, especially now that it has moved to the Lords. Still, the fast turnaround meant that many important decisions, such as what medications will be approved for use in assisted dying, have been left for the secretary of state to determine later through what's known as delegated legislation (secondary laws made without a full parliamentary vote). One area likely to receive particular scrutiny is the bill's inclusion of so-called 'Henry VIII clauses'. These are controversial powers that allow ministers to make changes to existing primary legislation, effectively altering acts of parliament without needing a new law. A key example is clause 38 that would let ministers revise the NHS Act 2006 to formally include assisted dying within NHS services. Several amendments aimed at strengthening the bill's safeguards were supported during the Commons stages. These included the introduction of independent advocates, a new disability advisory board, and additional protections for people with learning disabilities, mental health conditions, or autism. An amendment from Labour MP Naz Shah was also supported at the third reading, ensuring that a person who chooses to stop eating and drinking will not automatically be considered terminally ill. This is a protection designed to prevent the system being used inappropriately. Yet despite these measures, concerns remain. Critics worry about the risk of coercion, both from others and self imposed. There is particular unease about people feeling pressured to choose assisted dying because they consider themselves a burden. Questions have also been raised about whether those with conditions like anorexia might qualify for assisted dying under the current wording of the bill. Even with the new safeguards, including mandatory training for doctors to detect coercion and assess mental capacity, many feel the bill needs tighter definitions and clearer criteria to protect the most vulnerable. The impact on palliative and end-of-life care continues to be a major point of debate. Today, MPs backed an amendment from Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson that would require the government to assess the state of palliative care services within one year of the law being enacted. Peers in the House of Lords may push further on this issue. Some may argue that before a person can request assisted dying, they should first be referred to a palliative care specialist to fully understand their options. Others may want the law to spell out more clearly who is qualified to assess these requests. Another key question is who should provide assisted dying services. The British Medical Association has previously suggested a model where assisted dying operates outside the core NHS system. This would be a kind of parallel service overseen by the health secretary but delivered by independent providers. This would be similar to how early medical abortions are offered in some parts of the UK. Time is tight in the Lords, so peers will probably focus on a few high priority areas. Any amendments will need to be proposed, debated and approved quickly if the bill is to continue progressing this session. Even if the bill passes, it includes a four year implementation period to allow for the development of more detailed policies, including training for professionals, protocols for medication and clearer guidance on safeguarding. The passing of the bill in the Commons is historic. But the national conversation on assisted dying is not over. And the next phase will determine how this sensitive and deeply personal issue is handled in practice. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Suzanne Ost has previously received funding from the AHRC for her assisted dying research. Nancy Preston receives funding from Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020 and the NIHR
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Sexual assault and drink driving – cosy crime but not as we know it
A puzzle-setter turns sleuth in a quirky British crime series. Stop me if you think you've heard this one before. Murder Most Puzzling is trying to be Ludwig, which was a hit for the BBC last year. But it's a pale imitation. While that one was a five-star treat starring David Mitchell, this one is a two-star rip-off starring Phyllis Logan. The missteps start as soon as we are introduced to her character, Cora Felton. Cora is The Puzzle Lady, a crossword compiler whose job has made her so famous that she has her own range of biscuits and TV adverts. Let's not pause to ponder how unlikely that is. She is called in to investigate the case of a young woman found murdered in a churchyard, with a mysterious crossword clue in her pocket. Unfortunately, Cora can't make head nor tail of the clue when she first sees it because she's still sozzled from the night before. When we first meet her, she is passed out at the wheel of her car after a spot of drink-driving. Drink-driving? Really? We're supposed to find this quirkily amusing, but it strikes the wrong tone right away. It's a sign that the show doesn't quite know what it's supposed to be. This is cosy crime, yet having someone at a town hall meeting ask if the murder victim was sexually assaulted belongs in a grittier police drama. At least the mystery is wrapped up in a feature-length episode rather than being dragged out. The show is based on a book series by Parnell Hall and the failings of the TV series are odd because its writer, Dominique Moloney is a veteran of Father Brown and The Sister Boniface Mysteries. Some bits do conform to the cosy crime template: jaunty music, a picturesque setting in the fictional market town of Bakerbury (it's Lisburn in Northern Ireland), and the odd silly character, such as the blustering mayor in a cravat who runs the local police force. The programme's saving graces are the three lead performances. Logan, best known as Mrs Hughes in Downton Abbey, is a safe pair of hands and does her best with the material. Charlotte Hope is a bright spot as Cara's niece and right-hand-woman, Sherry. And Adam Best is, well, the best thing here as DCI Derek Hooper, who has never worked a murder case before and reluctantly turns to Cora for help. There is a twist halfway through relating to Cora's job, and if you didn't see it coming then I'm afraid your sleuthing skills are a little below par. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
UK lawmakers begin crunch debate on allowing terminally ill adults to end their lives
Since then, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been scrutinized, leading to some changes in the proposed legislation, which is being shepherded through Parliament by Labour lawmaker Kim Leadbeater rather than the government. Advertisement Divisive issue In opening the debate, Leadbeater relayed how she had heard hundreds of stories from people who saw their loved ones die in traumatic circumstances. 'Not supporting the bill today is not a neutral act. It is a vote for the status quo,' she said. 'And it fills me with despair to think MPs could be here in another 10 years' time hearing the same stories.' Proponents of the bill argue those with a terminal diagnosis must be given a choice at the end of their lives. However, opponents say the disabled and older people could be at risk of being coerced, directly or indirectly, into ending their lives to save money or relieve the burden on family members. Others have called for improvements in palliative care and greater investments in hospices to ease suffering as a better and more moral alternative. Advertisement Passions were running high outside of Parliament where hundreds of people gathered to make their voices heard. Supporters were dressed in clothing emblazoned with the phrase 'Campaign for Dignity in Dying,' while opponents held up banners urging lawmakers not to make the state-run National Health Service the 'National Suicide Service.' The vote is potentially the biggest change to social policy since abortion was partially legalized in 1967. What lawmakers are voting on The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow terminally ill adults aged over 18 in England and Wales, who are deemed to have less than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death. The terminally ill person would have to be capable of taking the fatal drugs themselves. Proponents of the bill say wealthy individuals can travel to Switzerland, which allows foreigners to legally end their lives, while others have to face possible prosecution for helping their loves ones die. How the vote may go The outcome of the vote is unclear, as some lawmakers who backed the bill in the fall only did so on the proviso that there would be changes made. Some who backed the bill then have voiced disappointment at the changes, while others have indicated Parliament has not been given enough time to debate the issues. The vote is a free one, meaning lawmakers vote according to their conscience rather than on party lines. Alliances have formed across the political divide. If 28 members switched directly from backing the bill to opposing it, while others voted exactly the same way, the legislation would fail. Timeline if the bill passes Friday's vote isn't the end of the matter. The legislation would then go to the unelected House of Lords, which has the power to delay and amend policy, though it can't overrule the lower chamber. Advertisement Since assisted dying wasn't in the governing Labour Party's election manifesto last year, the House of Lords has more room to maneuver. Any amendments would then go back to the House of Commons. If the bill is passed, backers say implementation will take four years, rather than the initially suggested two. That means it could become law in 2029, around the time that the next general election must be held. Changes to the bill Plenty of revisions have been made to the measure, but not enough for some. Perhaps the most important change was to drop the requirement that a judge sign off on any decision. Many in the legal profession had objected. Now any request would be subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist. Changes also were made to ensure the establishment of independent advocates to support people with learning disabilities, autism or mental health conditions and the creation of a disability advisory board. It was already the case that doctors wouldn't be required to take part, but lawmakers have since voted to insert a new clause into the bill extending the provision to anyone. The wording means 'no person,' including social care workers and pharmacists, is obliged to take part in assisted dying and can therefore opt out. Government stance There is clearly no consensus in the cabinet about the measure. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has indicated he will back the bill on Friday. His health secretary, Wes Streeting, is opposed, but said he will respect the outcome. Advertisement There are also questions about how it would impact the NHS, hospice care and the legal system. Nations where assisted dying is legal Other countries that have legalized assisted suicide include Australia, Belgium, Canada and parts of the United States, with regulations on who is eligible varying by jurisdiction. Assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, allowed in the Netherlands and Canada, which involves health care practitioners administering a lethal injection at the patient's request in specific circumstances.
