Vote Leave Reveals 50 Criminals the EU Stopped Us Deporting

violent eu criminal in uk

LONDON – England – Vote Leave is today publishing a dossier of 50 criminals which the European Court prevented us from deporting. These cases include offenders convicted of murder, rape, robbery and drug trafficking.

 

 

EU free movement rules prioritise the rights of criminals over public safety and mean we cannot deport dangerous EU criminals. If we vote to stay in the EU, this lack of control will only increase as the European Court uses the Charter of Fundamental Rights to entrench the right of foreign national offenders to reside in the UK.

Some of the EU criminals identified include:

Learco Chindamo, an Italian national who murdered headteacher Philip Lawrence in 1995 when he went to the assistance of a 13-year-old boy who was being attacked.
Theresa Rafacz, a Polish national, who killed her husband, including by kicking him in the face with a shod foot while he lay on the ground drunk.
Andrzej Stankiewicz, who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for causing death by careless driving while drunk.
Jordan Epee Homb, a German, convicted of possessing of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, who went to his victim’s house (occupied by his mother and seven-year-old daughter). An accomplice fired a shotgun twice through the front door.
Mircea Gheorghiu, a Romanian rapist whom the Secretary of State was ordered to readmit to the UK and to grant permanent residence, after removing him from the UK.
Mantas Baibokas, a Lithuanian who was discovered in possession of 7 kg of amphetamine sulphate, hidden in a jet ski in his garage.

Commenting, Justice Minister Dominic Raab said:

‘This is yet more evidence of how EU membership makes us less safe. Free movement of people allows unelected judges in the rogue European Court to decide who we can and can’t deport. This puts British families at risk. It squanders UK taxpayers’ money on keeping them in prison – and that’s on top of the £50 million we send to the EU every day.

‘Outside the EU, we can take back control of our borders, deport more dangerous criminals, and strengthen public protection. That’s why the safer choice is to Vote Leave on 23 June.’

Being in the EU makes us less safe. EU free movement rules prioritise the rights of criminals over public safety and mean we cannot deport dangerous EU criminals. New research by Vote Leave reveals:

  • 50 cases in which the UK has been unable to deport serious criminals to the European Union because of EU law. These cases include offenders convicted of murder, rape, robbery and drug trafficking.
  • Of these 50 offenders, all but two were sentenced in the UK to terms of imprisonment exceeding one year and, had it not been for EU law, would have been subject to automatic deportation under UK law.
  • This includes six offenders convicted of homicide, 5 convicted of sexual offences and 13 convicted of drug dealing. Crimes include murder, rape, blinding a child and possession of 7 kg of amphetamine sulphate with intent to supply. In each case, EU law allowed them to stay in the UK.
  • The legal judgements preventing the removal of 46 out of 50 of the criminals were issued since the current Government took office in May 2010.
  • The Government’s renegotiation will do nothing to change this. The European Commission has said it will issue a ‘Communication’ to address the UK’s concerns, but it accepts that it ‘has no legal effect’.

The UK will continue to lack control over whether it can deport serious criminals if it votes to remain in the unreformed EU on 23 June. This lack of control will only increase as the European Court uses the supposedly ‘fundamental status’ of EU citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights to entrench the right of foreign national offenders to reside in the UK. Even where the British courts have ruled offenders are ‘dangerous’, we are unable to remove them. None of these persons would have been removed under the European Arrest Warrant as they were not wanted in other EU member states.

eu criminal uk

50 criminals that the UK has been unable to deport because of EU law

Vote Leave has identified 50 serious criminals whom the UK was unable to deport because of EU law (see the Annex for full details). The table summarises the results:

Type of offence
Part 1 Homicide 6
Part 2 Offences against the person 15
Part 3 Sexual offences 5
Part 4 Drug offences 13
Part 5 Offences of dishonesty 9
Part 6 Other offences 2

Of these 50 offenders, all but two were sentenced in the UK to terms of imprisonment exceeding one year and would have been subject to automatic deportation under UK law had they been subject to it.
In addition, the legal judgements preventing the removal of 46 out of 50 of the criminals were issued since the current Government took office in May 2010.

Homicide

Six of the 50 offenders whom the UK could not remove were convicted of offences of homicide. They include:

Learco Chindamo, an Italian national who murdered headteacher Philip Lawrence in 1995 when he went to the assistance of a 13-year-old boy who was being attacked.
Theresa Rafacz, a Polish national, who killed her husband, including by kicking him in the face with a shod foot while he lay on the ground drunk.
Andrzej Stankiewicz, who was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for causing death by careless driving while drunk.

Offences against the person

15 of the 50 offenders whom the UK could not remove were convicted of offences against the person. They include:

LG, an Italian national, who followed a 66-year-old retired man and attacked him from behind, inflicting serious head and facial injuries, including a fracture of the skull, during a robbery. The trial judge said he was ‘a thoroughly dangerous man’.
Jordan Epee Homb, a German, convicted of possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence, who went to his victim’s house (occupied by his mother and seven-year-old daughter). An accomplice fired a shotgun twice through the front door.
AB, a Polish national, who shook her three month old daughter several times, as a result of which she was left brain-damaged, confined to a wheelchair and blind.

Sexual offences

5 of the 50 offenders whom the UK could not remove were convicted of sexual offences. They include:

Mircea Gheorghiu, a Romanian rapist whom the Secretary of State was ordered to readmit to the UK and to grant permanent residence, after removing him from the UK.
MS, a Lithuanian rapist. The Tribunal said his deportation could not be justified ‘on the basis of his previous criminal conviction even of such a serious nature as rape and attempted rape’.
VW, a Lithuanian, convicted of sexual assault. The Tribunal ruled ‘the Appellant’s behaviour does not come within the serious grounds of public policy’.

Drug offences

13 of the 50 offenders whom the UK could not remove were convicted of drug offences. They include:

Mantas Baibokas, a Lithuanian who was discovered in possession of 7 kg of amphetamine sulphate, hidden in a jet ski in his garage.
Eddie Karwhoo, a French national, convicted of fraudulently evading the prohibition on importing class A drugs and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.
Kingsley Chukwudinma Nwanekwul, a German national, convicted of being knowingly concerned in fraudulently evading the prohibition on importing Class A drugs and  sentenced to eight-and-a-half years’ imprisonment.

Offences of dishonesty

Benedetto Vassallo, an Italian career criminal convicted on 31 separate occasions of 68 offences in the UK
Vladas Juocys, a Lithuanian national, sentenced to five years’ imprisonment ‘for very serious tax offences’, with convictions for ‘things of which he ought to be ashamed’.
Darius Kersys, a Lithuanian convicted of defrauding a vulnerable elderly neighbour he had befriended to obtain dishonestly £112,000 after he died. The Judge described the crime as ‘a mean-spirited and nasty piece of offending’.

eu criminal-with-knife-waits-for-woman

UK law on the deportation of foreign criminals

The Home Secretary has the power to deport foreign nationals from the UK if she considers that it would ‘be conducive to the public good’. In addition, UK law provides that a person who is (a) convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to imprisonment or (b) is sentenced to more than twelve months’ imprisonment, is subject to automatic deportation. However, this has no application where deportation ‘would breach rights of the foreign criminal under the EU treaties‘.

This means that those with a right of residence in the UK under EU law are subject to a much weaker system. As Mr Justice McCloskey has said, EU foreign national offenders fall under ‘an entirely different régime from that which applies to other immigrants’. EU law ‘purposefully make[s] it difficult to remove a person from the jurisdiction’, even if they are a criminal.

eu criminal in uk

EU law on the deportation of foreign criminals

The unamended EU Treaties give every EU citizen the right to enter the UK:

  • ‘Citizens of the Union shall enjoy… the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’ (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
  • ‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States’.

Further provision is made by the 2004 Free Movement Directive, which was given effect to in UK law on 30 April 2006; Immigration. The 2004 Directive requires that persons can only be removed for reasons:

‘based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures. The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.’

The Directive makes it even harder to remove criminals from other EU member states where they have resided in the UK for a given period of time.

  • EU citizens who have lived in the UK for more than five years may only be removed on ‘serious grounds of public policy and public security’.
  • EU citizens who have lived in the UK for more than ten years may only be removed ‘on imperative grounds of public security’.

The European Court remains in ultimate control of how the Treaties and this Directive are applied in the UK. It has long held that the right to free movement must be interpreted broadly and that ‘departures from the rules concerning the free movement of persons constitute exceptions which must be strictly construed’ and that ‘exceptions to and derogations from the principle of freedom of movement… must be interpreted strictly’.

The European Court has ruled that it is unlawful to have a policy, or even a presumption that foreign national offenders convicted of specified offences are liable to removal. This includes those convicted of murder. A murderer in England and Wales can only be released if the Parole Board is satisfied that ‘it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined’. As a result, a murderer who is eligible for release cannot constitute the ‘genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat’ which EU law requires must exist for deportation to take place.

The difficulties caused by the European Court are demonstrated by the Government’s flagging attempts to deport CS. CS, a Moroccan national, was convicted of conveying a SIM card into prison for her father-in-law, convicted terrorist Abu Hamza al-Masri, and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport CS. On 4 February 2016, Advocate General Professor Professor Maciej Szpunar delivered an opinion stating that it was, in principle, contrary to the EU Treaties to deport CS because she had a child who was a British citizen. If this opinion is followed by the European Court, as seems likely, it will make it much more difficult to remove her from the UK.

The UK has also been unable to remove persons whom the courts have concluded were terrorists. ZZ was an Algerian-French national who had resided in the UK between 1990 and 2005. In 2005, the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, refused him readmission on return from a trip to Algeria and expelled him on the grounds of public security. Following a series of legal challenges, including a reference to the European Court of Justice, in 2015, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled the Home Secretary, Theresa May, could not exclude ZZ from the UK because of EU law. The Commission noted that:

We are confident that the Appellant was actively involved in the GIA [Algerian Armed Islamic Group], and was so involved well into 1996. He had broad contacts with GIA extremists in Europe. His accounts as to his trips to Europe are untrue. We conclude that his trips to the Continent were as a GIA activist’.

eu-crime in uk

The Government’s renegotiation will not solve the problem

The Government claims that the renegotiation means it will be able to ‘prevent dangerous EU nationals from coming to the UK and make it easier to deport them if they have been living in the UK’. This is false. The renegotiation does not in any way relax the onerous requirements of EU law which prevent the UK deporting dangerous criminals.

There is no proposal to amend the Treaties or the 2004 Free Movement Directive. The proposals agreed at the European Council will be contained ‘in a Communication’ to be issued by the European Commission. As the Commission accepts, a ‘Communication is a policy document with no mandatory authority. The Commission takes the initiative of publishing a Communication when it wishes to set out its own thinking on a topical issue. A Communication has no legal effect’.

The Commission’s declaration states that the UK ‘may take into account past conduct of an individual in the determination of whether a Union citizen’s conduct poses a “present” threat to public policy or security’. Yet the European Court has already ruled that a previous conviction can ‘be taken into account in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat’. This did nothing to aid the removal of the 50 criminals discussed in this paper.

The Commission’s declaration also states that member states ‘may act on grounds of public policy or public security even in the absence of a previous criminal conviction on preventative grounds but specific to the individual concerned’. Yet the European Court ruled this was the law in 1974 in the first case referred to that court after the UK joined the EU.

The Government’s proposals will have no legal status and are, in any event, merely restatements of the status quo. The situation is only likely to get worse. The European Court has already claimed EU citizenship is the ‘fundamental status’ of the nationals of every EU member state.

The European Court believes that the right of EU criminals to freedom of movement defeats the rights of British citizens to live in safety. If we remain, the European Court will continue to prioritise EU criminals’ ‘rights’ ahead of public safety. In addition, the Charter of Fundamental Rights creates a new right for all EU citizens to move freely and reside within the EU. This will cement the European Court’s control of whether criminals can stay in the UK.

 eu criminals in uk

 

Part 1. Homicide
#1        Learco Chindamo

  • In 1995, Chindamo, who is an Italian citizen, murdered the headteacher Philip Lawrence who went to help a 13-year-old boy who was being attacked. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996.
  • Chindamo was released in 2010 but recalled to prison due to accusations he intimidated and robbed a man at a cash machine, charges of which he was later acquitted.
  • In 2007, Mr Justice Collins ruled that removing Chindamo would be ‘disproportionate’ under EU law‘.

#2        FV (Italy)

  • FV, an Italian national, was convicted of the manslaughter of Edward Mitchell by reason of provocation in 2002. He inflicted at least 20 blows to the head with weapons, including a hammer, before strangling Mr Mitchell with a flex from an iron. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. FV had previous convictions for assaulting police, driving a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs, and driving while disqualified. The Secretary of State ordered his deportation.
  • Nonetheless, in September 2012, the Court of Appeal ruled his deportation was inconsistent with EU law because, in light of rulings of the European Court, ‘imperative grounds’ did not exist to justify his deportation.

#3        Theresa Rafacz

  • On 18 July 2009, Rafacz, who is a Polish national, killed her husband, including by kicking him in the face with a shod foot while he lay on the ground defenceless and drunk.
  • She admitted manslaughter, with Mr Justice Hart ruling the offence involved ‘gratuitous violence’. She was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.
  • Nonetheless, Mr Justice Blake ruled EU law prevented her removal, stating that there was ‘no basis’ which could ‘justify her deportation on the grounds of public policy‘.

#4        Andrzej Stankiewicz

  • In 2010, Stankiewicz was convicted of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He was three times over the limit. The sentencing judge stated that he was ‘driving at a higher rate of speed, apparently out of control and weaving about on both sides of the carriageway’ before colliding with the deceased.
  • In July 2014, the Upper Tribunal in Glasgow ruled that his removal would contravene his rights under EU law.

#5        AZ (Hungary)

  • AZ, a Hungarian citizen, ‘was convicted on 19 December 2011 of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to 4 ½ years imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 5 years. To be entirely clear, a married man, a father, a son of a lady who had already lost another son, was killed as a result of the appellant’s dangerous driving.’ The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • On 25 July 2014, the Upper Tribunal highlighted ‘the need to distinguish EEA deportation cases from those of other foreign national criminals’, and ruled AZ’s deportation would be contrary to EU law.

#6        Joao Pedro Correie Lopes

  • In 2012, Lopes, a Portuguese national, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for causing the death of an elderly woman, Nora Gutmann, by dangerous driving and to twelve months for knowingly causing a recording of false data relating to his lorry tachograph.
  • ‘This conviction came on top of another incident in February 2009 when a cyclist went under the wheels of his lorry and died for which he received three points on his licence and a £200 fine.’ The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In July 2015, the Upper Tribunal noted its powers in respect of criminals from the EU are limited, stating: ‘Had we been applying UK law governing deportation of foreign criminals we may well have concluded that his deportation was both lawful and proportionate, but the claimant is an EEA national and his case must be decided under the relevant EU law provisions‘. The Tribunal concluded his removal would be inconsistent with EU law.

Part 2. Offences against the person
#7        LG (Italy)

  • LG, an Italian national, was convicted of robbery and inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent: ‘in the early hours of Saturday 29 January 2000, LG had followed a 66 year old retired man and attacked him from behind, inflicting serious head and facial injuries, including a fracture of the skull. LG robbed the victim of his wallet, leaving him lying in the road.’
  • The trial judge said the offence was ‘a brutal, senseless, cowardly attack upon an elderly gentleman’, stating: ‘you are a thoroughly dangerous man…I don’t think for offences of robbery of this type it gets much worse’. His sentence was reduced on appeal to nine years.
  • LG had several other previous convictions, including for obtaining property by deception in 1996, obtaining services by deception, theft, and robbery. For the robbery in 1997, he received a sentence of three years and 28 days’ imprisonment.
  • In April 2009, Lord Justice Carnwath, sitting in the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, stated that while LG did present a risk to public security, ‘we do not think that the decision to deport LG was justifiable’ under EU law and allowed his appeal against deportation.

#8        Jordan Epee Homb

  • Between 2005 and 2010, Homb, a French citizen, ‘incurred several convictions, involving mainly simple possession of drugs, with one offence of criminal damage and another of assault’. In February 2011, he was convicted of ‘possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence’ and sentenced to 4-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. He went to the victim’s house (which was occupied by the victim’s mother and seven-year-old daughter) to scare him. An accomplice fired a shotgun twice through the front door. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In February 2014, Mr Justice McCloskey, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, noted that as an EU citizen, Homb ‘has to be dealt with under an entirely different régime from that which applies to other immigrants’ and ruled his deportation would be inconsistent with EU law.

#9        Andrei Zaharia

  • In 2012, Zaharia, a Romanian citizen, was convicted of two offences of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm against a previous boyfriend of his girlfriend who was stabbed with a knife along with a bystander. Zaharia was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State ordered his deportation.
  • In January 2014, the Upper Tribunal found that ‘there is no basis to remove’ him under EU law.

#10      Daha Essa

  • In January 2007, Essa, a Dutch national, committed a robbery at knife point: ‘He contested his guilt at trial; showed no remorse or awareness of the terrifying nature of his conduct on his victim who was trapped in an empty railway carriage at the time of the events.’ He had a previous conviction for handling stolen goods.
  • Nonetheless, on 19 July 2013, Mr Justice Blake, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, concluded that ‘deportation now for the conduct leading to his conviction would be disproportionate’ under EU law.

#11      AB (Poland)

  • In 2010, AB, a Polish national, ‘shook her three month old daughter several times in order to stop her crying, as a result of which her daughter suffered severe and life-threatening injuries leaving her brain-damaged, confined to a wheelchair and blind. That occurred at a time when the appellant was on her way out to meet a male who had been in contact with her via a sex search website’. She was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm and perverting the course of public justice for lying about the injuries and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport her.
  • The Upper Tribunal said, in allowing her appeal, that: ‘We consider it necessary to stress at this point that considerations that would have been significant and relevant in a non-EEA deportation case, such as deterrence and public revulsion, simply do not apply in this case. We are fully aware that the appellant’s offence was a shocking one and that the repercussions are extensive, leaving a young child permanently disabled and with the prospect of a truncated life. Had this been an ordinary deportation case such other considerations, taken together with the appellant’s circumstances in general, may well have led us to conclude that deportation was justified and in the public interest. However the appellant is an EEA national and, as such, she benefits from the protection of the EEA Regulations to which we are required by law to defer. Accordingly we find that there is only one decision we are able to reach, namely that the appellant’s deportation would be in breach of the EEA Regulations‘.

#12      MG (Portugal)

  • MG, a Portuguese national, had a conviction for child cruelty and three counts of assault, against her own children and was sentenced to twenty-one months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State refused her a residence card and ordered her deportation on grounds of public policy and public security.
  • Nonetheless, on 14 May 2014, the Upper Tribunal, following a ruling of the European Court in the same case, decided that: ‘it has not been shown that there are either grounds or serious grounds of public policy or public security’, allowing MG to remain in the UK.

#13      Nathan Oduro Beko Quiafo

  • Quiafo, a Dutch national, has ‘an unedifying record of United Kingdom criminality’. He received a warning for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2004, and then a reprimand for drug possession. In 2006, he committed two offences of robbery. He later committed several drug offences. In 2010, he was arrested in possession ‘of larger supplies of unspecified Class A drugs, more than required for his personal use’. While on bail, he committed an attempted robbery. He was imprisoned for four years for attempted robbery and possession with intent to supply.
  • In 2012, after the Secretary of State decided to deport him, he appealed and won on the grounds ‘that he had shown remorse, and his girlfriend was pregnant.’ He then committed further drug offences, including possession of cannabis with intent to supply and driving without a licence, failing to provide a specimen for analysis, failing to comply with a ‘no entry’ sign, and driving while uninsured.
  • The Secretary of State decided to deport him (again). The Immigration Judge held this was to ‘breach the claimant’s rights as an EEA national under the community treaties in respect of residence’. This decision was upheld by the Upper Tribunal.

#14      Jacek Straszewski

  • In June 2010, Straszewski, a Polish national, while drunk, ‘attacked another man with a broken glass, causing serious injuries to his face and neck’, pleading guilty to unlawful wounding for which he was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment. While on bail for that offence, he burgled a house containing two young women, punching and kicking them before making his escape. He pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal ruled that his deportation was inconsistent with EU law.

#15      Awale Madar

  • Mardar, a Dutch national, had four convictions for theft, a conviction for disorderly behaviour in a public place, a conviction for three separate offences of cannabis possession, a conviction for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, a conviction for handling stolen property and two convictions for robbery. For the robberies, he was sentenced to three-and-a-half-years’ detention. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • On 3 June 2014, the Upper Tribunal ruled that deportation would be ‘disproportionate‘ under EU law.

#16      Lukasz Tomasz Wozniak

  • Wozniak, a Polish national, had a lengthy criminal record, including convictions for careless driving, failing to surrender to custody, theft from shops, fraudulent use of vehicle documents, driving while uninsured, and breach of a conditional discharge.
  • On 11 December 2011, he was sentenced to thirty-two months’ imprisonment for offences of robbery. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • Upper Tribunal Judge Perkins held as a matter of EU law that ‘I cannot agree that his conduct qualifies him for removal and therefore I must and do allow the appeal’.

#17      Dariush Farhand

  • Farhand, a Danish national, had a criminal record which Mrs Justice Andrews said showed ‘an unedifying portrait of a young man who is prepared to put the lives of others at risk by driving with excess alcohol in his bloodstream, and who in more recent years has been prone to violence whilst under its influence.’ He was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm while serving a suspended sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and sentenced to thirty months’ imprisonment. The trial judge described the offence as a ‘serious, senseless, unprovoked attack late at night.’
  • In November 2014, Mrs Justice Andrews, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, stated that his deportation would be ‘disproportionate’ under EU law.

#18      Marian-Ionut Creanga

  • Creanga, a Romanian national, ‘was first reprimanded for being drunk and disorderly in December 2010. He received a warning for battery in March 2011; was fined for disorderly behaviour or threatening abusive or insulting words likely to cause harassment alarm or distress in November 2011 and fined for shoplifting in April 2012. The index offence is his conviction for attempted robbery on 13 July 2012 following a plea of guilty at Isleworth Crown Court. On 21 September 2012 he was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment.’ The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • On 24 March 2014, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, ruled that this was illegal under EU law.

#19      Arqr Wazny

  • In April 2011, Wazny, a Polish national who was convicted of violent disorder and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment after attacking Royal Marine Nigel Leppington in Dorset, who intervened when the gang which Wazny led attacked Leppington’s neighbour.
  • However, an immigration tribunal permitted him to remain in the UK because of his right to private and family life.

#20      Emil Damian Bejlik

  • Bejlik, a Polish national, was convicted of two offences of robbery and sentenced to one year and sixteen months’ imprisonment. The offences involved him and an accomplice snatching mobile phones from women in Bury town centre at night. One of the victims had a piercing ripped during the struggle. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In October 2013, the Upper Tribunal ruled EU law meant that he could not be removed from the UK.

#21      Melvin Luis Cavallo

  • Cavallo, an Italian citizen, was convicted of assault to severe injury and robbery and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • The Upper Tribunal ruled that ‘serious grounds of public policy were not established‘ which could justify his removal, which was in contravention of EU law.

Part 3. Sexual offences
#22      Mircea Gheorghiu

  • Gheorghiu, a Romanian national, entered the UK without leave in January 2007. In November 2007, he was convicted of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, fined and disqualified from driving for 20 months.
  • It later emerged that he had ‘a criminal record in Romania. In 1990 he was convicted of the offence of rape and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. Between 2001 and March 2002 he was convicted on three occasions of forestry offences, cutting timber without a licence, and received custodial sentences on the last two occasions.’
  • The Secretary of State removed him from the UK in March 2015.
  • Nonetheless, on 18 November 2015, Mr Justice Blake, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, decided this was unlawful under EU law, ruling Gheorghiu must be ‘reunited with his family as quickly as possible’ and that he was ‘entitled to a permanent residence on his return and the residence card issued to him will reflect that’.

#23      MS (Lithuania)

  • MS, a Lithuanian national, pleaded guilty to rape and attempted rape of his partner and was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him on grounds of public policy. The Secretary of State accepted that ‘the appellant’s deportation could not be justified simply on the basis of his previous criminal conviction even of such a serious nature as rape and attempted rape.’
  • The Upper Tribunal ruled: ‘the appellant cannot be removed or deported as an EU national‘.

#24      VW (Lithuania)

  • VW, a Lithuanian national, entered the UK in 2005. On 8 August 2013, he was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman and later that year was sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport VW.
  • The Immigration Judge found that VW was ‘not remorseful for the behaviour that he inflicted upon the victim’, but nevertheless decided that ‘the Appellant’s behaviour does not come within the serious grounds of public policy’, and therefore under EU law could not be deported.
  • On 27 October 2015, Mr Justice Holgate, sitting in the Upper Tribunal (Asylum and Immigration Chamber) dismissed the Home Secretary’s appeal, ruling the ‘decision must stand’.

#25      VB (Lithuania)

  • VB, a Lithuanian national, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment ‘for offences involving the trafficking of women for prostitution’. The Crown Court Judge recommended that she be deported.
  • On 26 October 2008, Senior Immigration Judge Richard McKee held that there was nothing ‘to justify her deportation’ in EU law.

#26      MP (Portugal)

  • MP, a Portuguese national, entered the UK in October 2000. ‘Between 11 October 2002 and 17 September 2013, the appellant was convicted on ten occasions for seventeen offences, including one sexual offence, three offences against the person, four public order offences, two relating to the police and courts and one drugs offence. On 20 August 2013, at Mold Crown Court, the appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and sentenced to fifteen months’ imprisonment.’ The Secretary of State decided to deport him on grounds of public policy.
  • In April 2015, the Upper Tribunal ruled that his deportation was inconsistent with EU law.

Part 4. Drug offences
#27      Mantas Baibokas

  • Baibokas, a Lithuanian citizen, first came to the attention of the authorities in 2008 for driving while under the influence of alcohol and for using a vehicle without a test certificate. In 2012, he was convicted of possession of amphetamine with intent to supply, after 7 kilogrammes of amphetamine sulphate were found in a jet ski in his garage. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In February 2014, Mr Justice Jay, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, stated ‘expulsion cannot be justified on the grounds of public policy and would be in breach of the EEA Regulations‘.

#28      Eddie Karwhoo

  • Karwhoo, a French national, was convicted of the fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on the importation of a Class A drug and was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • On 25 November 2013, Lord Matthews, sitting in the Upper Tribunal, concluded that deportation would be ‘unlawful’ under EU law.

#29      HAD (Austria)

  • HAD, an Austrian citizen, was convicted in 2011 ‘of possessing a class A controlled drug with intent to supply’ and sentenced to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
  • On 27 July 2015, the Upper Tribunal ruled that his deportation would be inconsistent with EU law.

#30      Kingsley Chukwudinma Nwanekwu

  • In 2011, Nwanekwu, a German citizen, was convicted of being knowingly concerned in fraudulent evasion of prohibition or restriction on importation of Class A controlled drugs, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding eight-and-a-half years.
  • The Secretary of State decided he should be deported from the UK.
  • In May 2015, Upper Tribunal Judge Reeds found that this decision was ‘disproportionate’ and inconsistent with EU law. He explained that ‘the legal regime for deporting EU criminals is different and can properly described as more restrictive than that for foreign national criminals… the Appellant’s criminal conviction, whilst serious, cannot justify a decision to deport him as an EU national on public policy grounds‘.

#31      AA (Nigeria/Norway)

  • AA was a Nigerian with Norwegian citizenship whose case was governed by the Free Movement Directive because that Directive is incorporated into the European Economic Area agreement.
  • In August 2010, AA ‘was convicted of the importation of one kilogram of a class A drug, cocaine, and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.’ The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • The Upper Tribunal Judge stated that he was ‘bound to express my disquiet at the case of an individual who has committed so serious an offence as to merit a period of six years imprisonment being permitted to remain in the United Kingdom’.
  • Nonetheless, both the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal agreed that his removal would be contrary to EU law.

#32      Justin Ewengue

  • Ewengue, a French national, was convicted of ‘four counts of possession of control drugs (class A) with intent to supply and one count of possession of class A drugs. He was sentenced to four years 10 months on each count to run concurrently.’ Between April and December 2012, he had a ‘significant role’ in the ‘commercial supply’ of drugs at street level. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In May 2015, the Upper Tribunal found that, as a matter of EU law, there ‘were no imperative grounds of public security to justify the removal of the Appellant‘ and that ‘his removal could not be justified’.

#33      Siegnerella Elaine Flaneur

#34      Siegnette Elaine Flaneur

  • Flaneur, a Dutch national, was apprehended at Belfast Airport in connection with the attempted importation of 136 grammes of cocaine. She was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport her.
  • The Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland quashed the deportation order on the ground it was inconsistent with EU law.

#35      Bruno Ferreira Melo

  • Melo, a Portuguese national, was convicted of attempted importation of LSD into the UK and sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • The Upper Tribunal ruled that his removal would be contrary to EU law.

#36      Rui Paulino Cardoso Viera De Almedia

  • De Almedia, a Portuguese national, was ‘convicted of fourteen offences on nine occasions’, including the supply of Class A drugs, for which he was sentenced to sixteen months’ imprisonment in 2012. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In November 2013, the Upper Tribunal decided that EU law prevented his removal.

#37      Tomasz Kazimierz Michalik

  • Michalik, a Polish citizen, was convicted of abstracting electricity and production of cannabis as part of a ‘commercial operation’. He was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • The Upper Tribunal ruled it would be illegal under EU law to remove him to Poland.

#38      Alberto Braganca Cassama

  • Cassama, a Portuguese national, arrived in the UK in 2012 and in 2013 was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply cocaine and cannabis.
  • On 11 August 2014, the Upper Tribunal allowed his appeal against deportation from the UK on the grounds that it would be inconsistent with EU law.

#39      Marcin Zajaczkowski

  • Zajaczkowski, a Polish national, was convicted of cultivating cannabis and sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In August 2014, this decision was ruled to be illegal under EU law.

Part 5. Offences of dishonesty

#40      Benedetto Vassallo

  • Vassallo, an Italian national has been convicted on 31 separate occasions of 68 offences in the UK, including ‘numerous offences of burglary’, which, ‘have resulted in custodial sentences ranging in length from 14 days to 54 months.’
  • He has also been convicted in Switzerland ‘for burglary, criminal damage and a public order offence’ and in Sweden ‘for burglary’.
  • In May 2012, he was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment for the burglary of an elderly couple’s home. The Secretary of State ordered his deportation.
  • However, in January 2016, the Court of Appeal ruled this was inconsistent with EU law.

#41      Dimitris Tsavdaris

  • Tsavdaris, a Greek national, ‘has been convicted of 20 criminal offences, the first in October 1999. On 2nd July 2004, he was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment for an offence of permitting premises to be used for the supply of Class A drugs. On 14th October 2005 he was convicted of theft from a motor vehicle and destruction of property, for which he was sentenced to 2 months imprisonment. He was released from prison on 16th February 2005.’
  • The Secretary of State decided to deport him, and he was detained for that purpose between 28 May and 5 December 2006. He was then released unconditionally.
  • In February 2014, Mrs Justice Lang ruled that in light of the difficulties EU law put in the way of his deportation, his detention was unlawful, entitling him to damages.

#42      Joseph Miranda

  • Miranda, a Portuguese citizen, was convicted in December 2013 of burglary with intent to steal. He had previous convictions for robbery in 2003, six offences of theft and deception between 2005 and 2007, three offences of false representation between 2007 and 2013, shoplifting, and failing to surrender to custody in 2013. The Secretary of State ordered his deportation.
  • The Upper Tribunal Judge said that ‘there are not in this appeal imperative grounds of public security to be considered, however unpleasant it may be for members of British society to have to endure and suffer from the criminal activities of the appellant‘ and that his removal was inconsistent with EU law, despite the fact he was a ‘persistent and public offender’.

#43      Raimodas Budraitis

  • Budraitis, a Lithuanian citizen, was first convicted in the UK for burglary in 2008 and for a second time in 2009. Thereafter, he was convicted of shoplifting. In total, he has 11 convictions for 23 offences, including several in Lithuania. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • This was ruled to be contrary to EU law by the Upper Tribunal.

#44      Carlos Miguel Lopas Cristo

  • Cristo, a Portuguese citizen, accumulated 11 convictions for 17 offences, ‘including 11 theft and kindred offences and six offences relating to police/courts/prisons’. He was then convicted of shoplifting and sentenced to 20 weeks’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • The Upper Tribunal ruled that deporting him to Portugal would be inconsistent with EU law.

#45      Vladas Juocys

  • Juocys, a Lithuanian national, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment ‘for very serious tax offences’. He had previous convictions for ‘things of which he ought to be ashamed’, including driving with excess alcohol, driving while uninsured, failing to surrender to custody, and interfering with an insurance document with intent to deceive. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • In December 2013, the Upper Tribunal noted: ‘It is trite law that EEA nationals who commit criminal offences in the United Kingdom are not in the same position as foreign nationals. The power to make a deportation order against them is regulated by the European Economic Area Regulations of 2006 which purposefully make it difficult to remove a person from the jurisdiction if they are in fact an EEA national.‘ It ruled his removal would be illegal under EU law.

#46      Darius Kersys

  • In January 2013, Kersys, a Lithuanian national, ‘was convicted of three offences of identity fraud, by which he and his wife used bank cards belonging to a vulnerable elderly neighbour whom they had befriended in order to obtain sums of money totalling about £112,000 from his bank account after his death’. The Judge described the crime as ‘a mean-spirited and nasty piece of offending’ and sentenced him to two-and-a-half years’ imprisonment .
  • The Court of Appeal ruled that his removal was inconsistent with EU law, with Lord Justice Moore-Bick stating the case ‘falls far short’ of the threshold for deportation.

#47      Mubarik Essa

  • Essa, a Dutch national, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud and was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • The First-tier Tribunal ruled ‘it is not shown that imperative grounds of public security are made out’, holding that removal would be contrary to EU law. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.

#48      Mohammed Essa

  • Essa, a Dutch national, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud and was sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State decided to deport him.
  • The First-tier Tribunal ruled ‘it is not shown that imperative grounds of public security are made out’, holding that removal would be contrary to EU law. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal in October 2014.

 

Part 6. Other offences

#49      Arturs Visockis

  • Visockis, a Latvian national, was convicted of shoplifting, then for four counts of theft and breach of a conditional discharge. In 2012, he was sentenced to thirty seven months’ imprisonment for escape from lawful custody and burglary.
  • In November 2013, the Upper Tribunal ruled his removal would be contrary to his rights under EU law.

#50      Bento Helder De Oliveira

  • De Oliveira, a Portuguese national, was convicted of a ‘serious offence‘ and sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. The Secretary of State’s attempts to deport him were held to be illegal under EU law.