Fury as ‘sick’ Pakistani paedophile escapes deportation in one of ‘worst cases’

Refusing to deport a Pakistani father jailed for child sex offences because it would be “unduly harsh” on his children is “amongst the worst” immigration decisions, Robert Jenrick declared.

The former Immigration Minister warned confidence in the system will plummet even further if there are no consequences for “appalling” mistakes.

The man, from Pakistan, was granted anonymity by an immigration court and had been banned from living with his two toddlers after being convicted of trying to get three “barely pubescent” girls to engage in sex.

But a lower tribunal judge ruled he should not be deported home because it would be “unduly harsh for the children to be without their father”.

Former Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick said: “I’ve seen a lot of appalling immigration cases, but this has to be amongst the worst.

“The original decision by the judge to block the deportation of this sick paedophile was dreadful. They made a deeply sexist justification that will shock you.

“The judge ‘placed weight’ on the wife’s claim that she felt partly responsible for her husband’s online grooming of girls aged 12, 13 and 14 because she had not been able to have sex with him after being admitted to hospital with .

“The judge lent credence to the idea that a woman not having sex with her husband should be a mitigating factor for child sex offences. Truly astonishing apologism for paedophilia.

“The judge then made things worse by blocking the deportation and granting this peaedophile access to their children for 12 hours a day.

“Obviously the correct response from the judge would be to say that this woman is traumatised and likely abused, and should be receiving support for her mental health and with childcare while she recovers – with her paedophile husband kept as far away as possible from her, their children and the British public.”

The Home Office appealed the decision and was backed by an upper tribunal judge Judith Gleeson who set aside the ruling, criticising it as “contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable”.

Mr Jenrick added: “The case is ongoing. This sick paedophile targeted girls as young as 12. He should be back in Pakistan, never to return. When sentenced for his crimes the judge said that he was ‘in denial’ and had ‘very little prospect’ of rehabilitation.

“Every day he remains in the country he is a danger to young women and girls. But his deportation cannot be the end of the matter.

“There has to be accountability for the original judge whose identity remains anonymous. How can the British public have confidence in our justice and immigration system when there are no consequences for appalling errors like this?”

The sex offender was granted leave to remain in the UK after coming to join his wife in 2018. In March 2021, he started targeting the “pre-pubescent” girls aged 12, 13 and 14.

The pervert continued to target the schoolgirls until his arrest in August 2022. He was jailed in December 2022.

Sentencing him to 18 months in jail, the judge said he was “in denial” about the offences and making excuses, leading to the conclusion that there was “very little prospect” of rehabilitation.

The judge also said there would be no significant impact on his wife or children by jailing him as he was “not living in the family home for obvious reasons”.

But the lower immigration tribunal judge who heard his appeal against deportation accepted it would be “unduly harsh” to separate him from his children, whom he was being allowed to see for up to 12 hours a day under “supervised contact.”

And the judge ludicrously “placed weight” on the wife’s claim that she felt partly responsible for his online grooming of the girls because she had not been able to have sex with him after being admitted to hospital to be treated for .

The court was told: “Her guilt would be an additional burden and would detrimentally impact her ability to care for her children, albeit not at a level requiring social services intervention.”

And the judge then ruled: “In light of the above matters considered cumulatively, I am satisfied that it would be unduly harsh for the children to be without their father.”

However, the upper tribunal judge Judith Gleeson backed a Home Office appeal against the judgement, saying: “The first-tier judge’s findings of fact and credibility are contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong, and rationally insupportable.”

She said the judge had failed to take account of the strength of the sentencing judge’s remarks, adding: “His characterisation of these offences as a mere blip in the appellant’s life is unsound and inadequately reasoned.

“The emphasis on the wife’s failure to provide intimate relations to her husband when she was unwell, and/or a new mother, does not explain why the claimant felt the need to engage with barely pubescent girl children online.

“The absence of marital relations is no excuse and should not have been given weight in the judge’s reasoning.”

She referred the case back to the lower-tier tribunal to be reconsidered.