Serial rapist will stay in UK despite 26 years of failed deportation attempts
A SERIAL rapist who abducted women will stay in the UK after the Home Office took 26 years to try to deport him.
Mohammed Aslam, 56, won a legal battle even though a tribunal judge admitted the decision “may be objectionable to the vast majority”.
The Kenyan-born fiend was jailed for 17 years in 1988 but not told he’d be sent home until 2016.
After his release from prison on parole he wed a British woman.
Lawyers said he had lived here too long to be kicked out and had established a life with a home and a family.
Judge John Hanson declared the deportation delay was “egregious” – branding the case “harsh and arbitrary”.
READ MORE UK NEWS
He added that if bungling officials had pursued the rapist’s removal sooner it likely would have been granted.
The Judge went on: “The simple fact is that if the (Home Office) believed Mr Aslam’s deportation was relevant for the expression of public concern for crime… the deportation proceedings should have been commenced earlier.
“Whilst this decision may be objectionable to the vast majority of the public, quite understandably, and whilst some judges may not have made this decision, that is not the test.”
Former minister Alec Shelbrooke said: “The judiciary are giving in to people who break the law in our country and should be deported back to their own.
Most read in The Sun
“The rules are are crystal clear and making excuses undermines people’s faith in judiciary.
“I think the Home Office has been a broken organisation for years and every time a strong Home Secretary like Priti Patel has tried to make significant changes, the civil servants ganged up and tried to have her removed.”
A Home Office spokesman said: “We are taking rigorous action against foreign criminals through careful management of cases and eliminating barriers to removal.
“There are significant and complex challenges when seeking to return those who have no right to be in the UK. These challenges can include late applications, disruption, and broader non-compliance with a lawful returns process.”
