Zimbabwean Paedophile Allowed to Stay in UK Due to Fear of Hostility in Home Country
A Zimbabwean man convicted of child sex offences has been permitted to remain in the UK after an immigration tribunal ruled that deporting him to his home country would expose him to significant hostility. The decision, made under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits torture and inhuman treatment, has sparked controversy and reignited debates over the application of human rights laws in deportation cases.
The man, identified only as RC, is an openly gay individual who served over five years in prison for child sex offences. His legal team argued that his sexual orientation, combined with his criminal record, would make him a target for persecution in Zimbabwe, where same-sex relationships are criminalized. Additionally, RC’s autism and deafness were cited as factors that would limit his ability to navigate hostile environments, further increasing his vulnerability. Judge Sarah Pinder, presiding over the case, agreed with these arguments, stating that the cumulative risks justified blocking his deportation.
The Home Office had initially ordered RC’s removal from the UK in 2021, but he successfully challenged the decision by invoking his rights under the ECHR. Judge Pinder upheld a lower tribunal’s ruling in his favor, emphasizing that the Zimbabwean authorities would likely discover his criminal record upon his return, exacerbating the hostility he would face. Despite the UK government’s assurance that it would not disclose his offences to Zimbabwean officials, the judge deemed it reasonable to assume that his convictions would come to light during interactions with local authorities.
This case is the latest in a series of controversial rulings where foreign nationals convicted of crimes have avoided deportation by citing human rights concerns. Critics argue that such decisions prioritize the rights of offenders over public safety, particularly when it comes to protecting children from potential harm. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp condemned the ruling, stating that the ECHR was never intended to shield dangerous criminals from deportation. He questioned the implications for child safety in the UK, urging reforms to prevent similar outcomes in the future.
The ruling has also drawn attention to broader issues surrounding immigration and human rights laws in the UK. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has pledged to address loopholes that allow such decisions, while Reform UK has seized on the case to criticize the government’s handling of immigration. As debates over human rights legislation and deportation policies continue, cases like RC’s highlight the complex interplay between individual rights, public safety, and international obligations.