The man tried to groom the young girls online (Image: Getty)
A paedophile jailed for trying to lure three “barely pubescent” girls into having sex with him was spared deportation because a hearing concluded it would be “unduly harsh” on his own children, it has been revealed.
And the judge who issued the original decision even took into consideration a claim by the man’s wife that she felt partly responsible – because she had not been able to have sex with her husband. The matter has now been referred back for reconsideration by a higher court.
The unnamed father, who was granted anonymity by an immigration , had been banned from living with his two children after he was for 18 months for targeting the girls, aged 12, 13 and 14.
The “pre-pubescent” girls, aged 12, 13 and 14, were in fact decoys in what was believed to be an undercover police operation, the court dealing with the offences was told.
However, a lower tribunal judge also ruled that he should not be returned to Pakistan as it would not be fair to leave the children without their father.
:
The Home Office subsequently appealed against the decision and was backed by Judith Gleeson, an upper tribunal judge, who set aside the ruling, describing it as “contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable”, reported the . The case is ongoing.
The man had been granted leave to remain in the UK after coming to join his wife, with whom he has two children, aged three and four, in 2018.
Four years ago he began pursuing the young girls, and continued to do so until his arrest in August 2022. In December he was jailed and made subject to a deportation order by Suella Braverman, who was at the time Home Secretary.
Sentencing him, the judge ruled that he was “in denial” about the offences and making excuses, concluding that there was “very little prospect” of rehabilitation.
Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman (Image: Getty)
The judge said there would be no significant impact on his wife or children by jailing him because he was “not living in the family home, for obvious reasons”.
The man was also put on the sex offenders register and banned from using social media to contact any underage girls.
Nevertheless, the lower immigration tribunal judge who heard his appeal against deportation concluded it would be harsh to separate him from his children, whom he was being permitted to see for up to 12 hours a day under “supervised contact”.
The judge also “placed weight” on a claim by the defendant’s wife that she felt partly responsible for his online grooming because she had not been able to have sex with him, having been admitted to hospital to be treated for .
Don’t miss… [PICTURES]
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.”
The judge 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, Ms Gleeson said: “The first-tier judge’s findings of fact and credibility are contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong, and rationally insupportable.”
Referring to the original ruling, she added: “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 for reconsideration.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Foreign nationals who commit heinous crimes should be in no doubt that we will do everything to make sure they are not free on Britain’s streets, including removal from the UK at the earliest possible opportunity.
“Since the election, we’ve removed 2,580 foreign criminals – a 23 per cent increase on the same period 12 months prior.”