Psychotic Robber Avoids Deportation to Nigeria Due to Mental Health Concerns
A Nigerian armed robber, deemed mentally ill, has avoided deportation to Nigeria. His appeal was based on the assertion that he would be viewed as ‘possessed’ in his home country, which undermines his chances for proper mental health treatment. Critics worry about the implications of such rulings concerning the responsibilities of the UK to foreign criminals with significant health issues.
A Nigerian robber and crack cocaine dealer, diagnosed with mental health issues, has successfully appealed against a deportation order to Nigeria. This decision was made on the grounds that he would be perceived as “possessed” in his home country. Despite a prior conviction for armed robbery and drug dealing, he remains in the UK as he cannot access adequate mental health treatment in Nigeria. A tribunal judge cited concerns over his belief in demonic possession as a factor in the ruling.
The man, who cannot be named due to legal reasons, has spent significant time in a secure mental health facility and has expressed a desire to lead a crime-free life. He claims to experience voices and intrusion of demonic beliefs affecting his mental state. His key worker noted his engagement with community activities and a commitment to personal betterment, attending the gym and volunteering regularly.
Critics of the ruling, such as Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK, argue that it raises concerns over the responsibility of the UK to address the health issues of foreign criminals. Mehmet questioned why British taxpayers should fund the treatment of someone with a serious criminal record and significant mental health challenges. The case highlights ongoing controversies regarding the application of human rights laws in immigration matters, particularly for convicted foreign nationals.
The case of the Nigerian robber illustrates the complexities of immigration law as it intersects with mental health issues. The decision of the tribunal not to deport him raises questions regarding the responsibilities of the UK toward foreign criminals, particularly when mental health is a significant factor. This ruling has sparked debate about the fairness and implications of human rights laws in the context of criminality and immigration.
Original Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
