Samuel Frimpong, deported from the UK 12 years ago, has been allowed to return after an immigration tribunal ruled that separation from his family had caused him depression, violating his family life rights under the ECHR. The judge concluded that the impact on his children and their need for their father justified revoking his deportation order, despite his previous criminal actions.
Samuel Frimpong, a Ghanaian criminal deported from the United Kingdom 12 years ago, has been allowed to return due to human rights considerations. An immigration tribunal found that separating him from his family had caused him significant depression, equating the deportation to an “unjustifiable interference” with his family life rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Frimpong was originally deported in 2013 following a prison sentence for using false documents to evade UK immigration rules. His children, aged 11 and 15, have struggled with their father’s absence, experiencing social isolation and difficulty in explaining his situation to peers.
Initially, an immigration tribunal rejected his appeal against deportation. However, Judge Abid Mahmood of the upper tribunal overturned this decision, citing the detrimental impact of Frimpong’s absence on his family. The judge highlighted the weighty public interest in upholding family unity and noted the significance of Frimpong’s role as a father in his children’s lives.
This situation is part of a broader pattern where deported individuals and foreign criminals have successfully appealed against their removals from the UK by referencing human rights laws. The ongoing cases reflect a growing series of appeals affecting immigration policy, with over 34,169 outstanding appeals, primarily based on human rights.
Frimpong’s appeal was remarkable as he challenged his deportation while residing outside the UK. His wife testified that the family was evicted after his removal, unable to afford to return to Ghana. She expressed their distress and longing for Frimpong’s presence, indicating that the children prayed for his safe return.
Nevertheless, a government representative argued that Frimpong’s use of fake documents fundamentally jeopardized immigration integrity. In response, Judge Mahmood acknowledged the severity of Frimpong’s past actions but underscored the emotional toll on the children, suggesting that moving them to Ghana would be exceedingly difficult.
The judge also noted a probation report indicating Frimpong posed no risk of reoffending, emphasizing his remorse and efforts toward rehabilitation since his conviction. Frimpong, who had been studying to become an accountant and now serves as a pastor, may proceed to apply for entry clearance to rejoin his family in the UK.
Samuel Frimpong’s case represents a compelling intersection of human rights and immigration law, as he has been granted the right to return to the UK after a prolonged period of separation from his family. The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining familial bonds, particularly for children, against the backdrop of immigration policy. This case highlights ongoing challenges faced by the UK government in balancing immigration enforcement with human rights considerations.
Original Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
