A Jamaican rapist used human rights laws to avoid deportation after claiming his criminal record would rule him out of witness protection in his home country.

The convicted sex attacker entered the program on the Caribbean island as a child because his mother testified about gangland murder.

He later moved to the UK where he was sent to prison multiple times for rape, unlawful wounding and burglaries.

The Home Office has repeatedly tried to deport the sex attacker. But the criminal claimed his criminal record would prevent him from going back into witness protection.

His argument was initially dismissed but has now been allowed by an immigration tribunal on human rights grounds meaning the criminal will be allowed to remain in the UK.

The Upper-tier Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber was told the sex offender - who was granted anonymity - entered the UK in 2001 as a visitor.

His mother was a police informant and was the prosecution's main witness in a case against a gang leader, who was convicted and jailed for murder.

The family entered witness protection in 1997, but two years later his mother moved to the UK. He stayed in Jamaica and was moved around several times by the witness protection team.

After entering the UK in 2001, the criminal was initially granted leave to remain as a student and then overstayed his visa.
He applied for asylum in 2006 but whilst his application was pending he was convicted of unlawful wounding and burglary. He was sentenced to 4 years and 8 months' imprisonment in 2009.

Four years later he was jailed for 9 years for rape. Following his release he was recalled to prison in November 2022.

The Home Office first issued a deportation order in 2019 on the basis that his convictions excluded him from refugee protection.
The Jamaican appealed this at a First-tier Immigration and Asylum Tribunal hearing on the grounds he would be 'at risk' if he was sent back.

Prior to the hearing, the Home Office contacted the Jamaican Ministry of National Security to confirm if the criminal had been in the witness protection program.

Officials in Jamaica said the likelihood of harm to him would be 'high' and there was also a risk of 'psychological trauma' if he returned. The Ministry added there was 'no guarantee' he would be accepted back into witness protection.

His 2023 appeal was dismissed by the First-tier tribunal on the basis there was a 'real possibility' he would be allowed back into witness protection and not at risk as a result.

Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Guidance states that Jamaican authorities are able to provide 'effective protection' but only to those 'reasonably likely' to be admitted to witness protection.

The Jamaican appealed the decision on the grounds that the tribunal had 'failed to consider' his criminal record and mental health issues when deciding the likelihood he would be accepted into witness protection and that the programme had failed to keep him safe as a child.

At the latest appeal, the Upper-tier Tribunal also had to decide if the lower court had used too high a standard of proof as in cases involving the prohibition of torture the risk of harm can be as low as 10 per cent to be allowed.

Upper Tribunal Judge Leonie Hirst concluded that the standard of proof had been misapplied and allowed the appeal on the basis there was a 'real risk' the rapist would not be allowed back into witness protection.

UTJ Hirst said: "It was not in dispute that there was a real risk of harm to [him] from non-state actors, namely criminal gangs.
"Nor was it in dispute that the Jamaican witness protection programme would, if [he] was admitted to it, provide protection.

"The question for the First-tier Tribunal, applying the lower standard of proof, was therefore whether there was a ‘real risk’ or reasonable likelihood that the Jamaican state would fail to provide reasonable protection against the risk of harm; that is, a real risk that [he] would not be able to access the programme.

"The First-tier Tribunal in this case erred by conflating the standard of proof to be applied to the Article 3 claim with the standard of protection to be provided by the state, and by applying the wrong standard of proof to [his] ability to access the witness protection programme...

"Given it was common ground that there was a real risk [he] would not be admitted onto the witness protection programme on return, the appeal would fall to be allowed."

Ms Cooper on Monday confirmed ministers are considering rewriting human rights laws amid rising fury over immigration tribunal decisions.

It follows a series of hugely controversial rulings where illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have exploited human rights laws to stay in the UK.

Former lawyer Sir Keir denied barristers are to blame for Britain’s immigration crisis.

He told reporters: “Lawyers are employed to represent people, and they represent them whether they agree with them or don’t agree with them.

“That’s been the system in place for pretty much the whole time we’ve had our current legal system. Every barrister subscribes to those rules.

“The system would break down if you didn’t have those rules, which would make a bad situation even worse.”

Some Labour MPs have urged ministers to set aside the ECHR and deport foreign criminals.

Ms Cooper said: “The review underway at the moment is looking at the application of Article 8 in particular cases where we have disagreed with the conclusions that were reached in the courts. That review is underway at the moment.

“We continue to abide by international law, and it’s worth saying that it is because we are part of the ECHR we’ve been able to get these further agreements with France and with Germany, including the agreement with Germany on them going after the warehouses where the boats are being stored, including strengthening our cooperation and sharing far more intelligence with France.”