Somalian rapist gets £50,000 compensation

[The Mouth of Sauron]

Sums up Blair's Britain .

[thaanatos]

I assume there is a story to accompany this conclusion?

[generalised radiance]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

I assume there is a story to accompany this conclusion?

Rapist asylum seeker due damages

A failed asylum seeker convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl is to be awarded damages after a judge ruled he was unlawfully detained in prison.
The 31-year-old, known as "A" for legal reasons, was held for 20 months after serving his sentence while authorities tried to deport him to Somalia.

A High Court judge ruled his detention became unlawful because of its length, and he was entitled to compensation.

Human rights lawyers said he could get up to £50,000 from the Home Office.

'Misleading statements'

Mr Justice Calvert Smith, sitting in London, said the detention became unlawful because of its length, the impossibility of achieving removal and misleading statements for immigration officials.

He also said there had been a failure to consider releasing the man with an electronic tag, an option available since July 2005.

The judge said although "A" had been desperate to remain in the UK, that was not enough to displace the illegality of his detention.

He added that it was not necessary for the man to stay in the UK while damages were assessed.

But it is thought "A" may seek a further judicial review against attempts to deport him.

Media requests that the man should be identified given his criminal record were rejected.

The judge said naming him could hamper Home Office attempts to deport him.

"A" first arrived in the UK in May 1995.

He completed an eight-year prison sentence more than three years ago, for the rape of a young girl at knifepoint.

Basically the rapist served his full 8 year sentence (I know the victim serves a life sentence for being raped - but that's another thread) and was wrongly held an extra 20 months.
Secondly, a judge has ruled that he was unlawfully detained and so is due compensation.
Thirdly - he hasn't recieved it yet. The figure is speculation by Human Rights Lawyers.

Finally, IMO - he should have been deported - he's failed the conditions for asylum. I think him being compensated will really upset his victim - not sure crime victims get compensation (need to check that up) but the sum point is that the judiciary - not the politicians (i.e. Tony Blair) have the power under the UK constitution to make these decisions.

[thaanatos]

problem solved....write him a check for the 50k and mail it to him for general delivery in the country he fled from....then tell him which post office he can pick it up at.....

[Dreadfulfaery]

He should have been deported at the start of his sentance. Why should we have to pay for him for 8 years???

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Dreadfulfaery

He should have been deported at the start of his sentance. Why should we have to pay for him for 8 years???

Would you trust Somalia to enforce the sentence? How would you (or the victim) feel if he had been free upon arriving at Mogadishu airport?

Besides, assuming he was in the country legally at the time of his crime, he is UK's problem.

That they want to kick him out now is indeed fine: Failed the test for succesful asylum in a big way!

[Abaddon]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

problem solved....write him a check for the 50k and mail it to him for general delivery in the country he fled from....then tell him which post office he can pick it up at.....

Seems like a perfect idea to me.

[Bateman]

I don't see what the problem is here. He served his sentence in full, he paid his debt. Then the Government unlawfully detained him beyond his release date. He is entitled to something for that 18 months he spent behind bars for no reason. 50k seems excessive but I would guess he'll get less than that anyway.

[thaanatos]

He is entitled to something for that 18 months he spent behind bars for no reason.

why? He would have been out 18 months sooner if he hadn't been fighting his deportation.....did he have a right to be free in England?

[Larkin]

why? He would have been out 18 months sooner if he hadn't been fighting his deportation.....did he have a right to be free in England?

No, but he has a right to be treated fairly if he chooses to fight that deportation, which the judge has ruled that he was not.

[thaanatos]

No, but he has a right to be treated fairly if he chooses to fight that deportation, which the judge has ruled that he was not.

being treated fairly does not include being permitted to travel freely about the country he is being deported from does it?

[Larkin]

being treated fairly does not include being permitted to travel freely about the country he is being deported from does it?

It does if they are going to take 18 months to deport him.

[thaanatos]

Why? If you start with someone who has no right to be somewhere, why would the fact that he fights your efforts to remove him GIVE him the right to be there......

[Larkin]

You are making an assuption which the Judge has ruled to be incorrect. That is, that the one at fault for the length of the trial is the man, and not the improper actions of the immigration officials.

[thaanatos]

other considerations aside (article mentions misleading statements)...solely on the issue of whether length of time matters....do you think that length of time automatically gives a person the right to be someplace that they did not have a right to be before?

[Larkin]

Not automatically, no. It depends on the reasons for the length of time. If the length of time is due solely to the person fighting their deportation, than no. But that does not seem to be the case here, it seems that it was due in part to incorrect actions by immigration officials.

[thaanatos]

But that does not seem to be the case here, it seems that it was due in part to incorrect actions by immigration officials.

even in that event, should the result be that he is free to go where he originally had no right to go?

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

even in that event, should the result be that he is free to go where he originally had no right to go?

Not by logic. But the judge has to follow the rules. If the law says 'speedy trial for deportations or the guy can walk till the issue is settled', the judge has no choice but to let him go.

Which, i agree, is fucked up.

But, then, how the hell did something like that took 18 months? Clearly, the guy cannot be entitled to stay. 'Having paid his debt to society' is not a reasonable argument to agree to let him in. Each society has to deal with its own criminals. There is no fast and easy rule for criminals who have served their time. Some may amend, plenty do not etc etc.

But I cannot see how this guy, with a now serious criminal record, should be entitled to immigrate. Again, 'having payed his debt' doesn't mean 'I am now white again and all is forgotten'. Forgiven, maybe. But definitely not forgotten.

[generalised radiance]

Originally Posted by thaanatos

other considerations aside (article mentions misleading statements)...solely on the issue of whether length of time matters....do you think that length of time automatically gives a person the right to be someplace that they did not have a right to be before?

Not sure where this all came from - the rapist was held in prison (on the rape charge) for longer than his prison term. THAT is what the compensation claim is for. Nothing to do with whether or not he's trying to stay.

He's not been told he's "free to go" as we don't have his name yet - he's still being held on OTHER charges i.e. that he's an illegal immigrant.

IMO, the only real and relevent debating point left is that the supposed £50,000 he could be due is the amount that the Government took from the now closed National Rape Crisis Centre; an amount which caused the centre to close. That is what MoS SHOULD have gotten all angry about.

[The Mouth of Sauron]

If he hadn't been allowed in to the UK in the first place he wouldn't have committed rape here - THAT's what pisses me off , not some alleged abrogation of the bastard's human rights .