Foreign criminal can stay in Britain because he is an alcoholic

A persistent offender from Libya cannot be deported because he would face severe punishment for drinking in his homeland, immigration court rules

A foreign criminal who has been convicted of more than 70 offences has been allowed to remain in Britain because he is an alcoholic.

In what is believed to be the first case of its kind, the Libyan man successfully argued that he would face physical punishment and imprisonment in his homeland, where alcohol consumption is illegal.

• Foreign robber loses 'family life' human rights claim

• Human Rights Act is stopping us deporting foreign criminals, minister says

The man, who was granted anonymity by the courts and can only be identified by the initials ‘HU’, was said by the upper immigration tribunal to have “behaved disgracefully”.

It means the 53-year-old will be free to continue his alcohol-fuelled crime wave in Britain because the punishment he would face in Libya would be too severe, and because he has a “right to family life” in this country.

Tripoli, Libya

The judge recognised that the appeal – which was vigorously opposed by the Home Office - was an “unusual case”.

But he added that it was not possible to simply “take the high moral ground” and suggest that HU should give up drinking.

HU first came to Britain to study aeronautical engineering in 1981 and has been here ever since, apart from a short period in Libya from August 1993 to October 1994, the court heard.

He was convicted of 78 different offences on 52 different occasions, the court added, although it failed to provide any details of the types of crime he committed.

The offences were committed “largely and possibly exclusively as a consequence of his alcoholism”.

The Home Office sent HU five letters warning him that his behaviour put him at risk of deportation.

He was finally served with notification of a deportation order in July 2008, which he appealed against and won on the grounds that it would breach his human rights.

He continued to offend and in a new deportation order was issued in January 2013.

• Record number of foreign criminals cannot be deported

• Hungarian killer driver wins right to stay in Britain

HU applied to quash the order on the grounds that it breached Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights which protects against torture and ill-treatment and Article 8, the right to private and family life.

The lower immigration court allowed his case but the Home Office appealed against the decision and it was heard by the upper tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

Belal Ballali, a British-Libyan researcher, told judges that “commercially produced alcohol is widely available in Tripoli” and “cheaply made ‘moonshine’ is readily available … outside the capital”, according to court papers.

However, drinking alcohol is an offence which carries a custodial sentence in the country, he added.

“Under the rule of militia the usual routine for a person found drinking was arrest, possible whipping and detention for a few days,” said the court papers.

“Mr Ballali thought there was a chance of virtually permanent detention in the case of an habitual drunk.”

The Home Office argued HU could avoid trouble in his home country by abstaining from alcohol.

But Upper Tribunal Judge Jonathan Perkins said: “The fact is the claimant has had many years of trying to deal with alcohol dependency and recognises that he cannot.

“It is very easy for a person not addicted to a substance to take the high moral ground and pontificate about how easy it is for the addict to alter his lifestyle but is clearly is not easy.

“If it were easy there would not be so many alcoholics, smokers and overweight people.

“The claimant’s history is addiction is such that he cannot abstain from consuming alcohol when alcohol is available.”

Judge Perkins ruled returning HU to Libya would “expose him to a risk of ill-treatment” and “interfere disproportionately with his private and family life”, and dismissed the Home Office’s appeal.

Dominic Raab who is contesting Esher and Walton for the Conservative party and who, as an MP in the last parliament, campaigned for human rights reform, said: “This case highlights the increasingly-elastic approach to human rights taken by the immigration tribunal, which undermines public protection and erodes democratic accountability.

“Only a Conservative government will reform these skewed human rights laws, and restore some common sense."

The Home Office is understood to be appealing the decision to the Court of Appeal.