A Pakistani national convicted of child sexual offenses has won a legal battle to remain in the UK, arguing against his deportation. Child sex offender, Jamil Ahmed, said he should not be sent back to the nation of his birth because he is worried he will be persecuted there, Mail Online reports. His crimes were publicised in his home country, and therefore, he might face punishment on his return. Ahmed, who molested multiple teenage girls in Britain, said his crimes were published in newspapers in Pakistan, and as a result, he could be prosecuted there or attacked by 'religious fanatics'. He has managed to dodge deportation and remain in Scotland since 200,8 when he was convicted of abusing a teenage girl, despite being convicted of a similar offence again in 2013. Speaking to an asylum court, he said it would be against his human rights to kick him out of the UK. He has now won an appeal after the Home Office tried to deport him and his case will be re-heard. Ahmed was born in Pakistan but moved to Scotland in 2002 to be with his wife. The couple had a son and Ahmed was granted leave to remain in 2003. After divorcing he married again in 2006 and had another son in 2007. He was convicted in 2008 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16 years of age and sentenced to a three-year probation order and 240 hours of community service. In November 2013 he was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16 and sexually assaulting a teenager. He was jailed for three years and six months and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for an indefinite period. As a result, Ahmed was subjected to a deportation order. However, he has embarked on a near decade-long legal fight to stay in Britain. He has lost two appeals but has never been removed from the UK. In 2014, then-Home Secretary Theresa May ordered that Ahmed be deported immediately and that any further legal appeals should be dealt with from Pakistan. He argued at the time that deportation would separate him from his wife and children, breaching his right to a family life as enshrined in European Convention on Human Rights. At his latest appeal, the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber in Edinburgh heard his sex offences were reported in a newspaper in the UK. He claims reporting also featured in the Daily Kashmir News. The tribunal judgement said: '[Ahmed] asserts that he has a well-founded fear of persecution and is at risk of suffering serious harm in Pakistan because knowledge of his crimes have become known in Pakistan and published in newspapers. 'In addition, a First Information Report ('FIR') has been made to the police in his local area on the basis of his crimes; a fatwa has also been issued. '[Ahmed] states that he is at risk of being prosecuted in Pakistan for these offences for which he has already been convicted, double jeopardy law applying in Pakistan. 'He also submits that he is at risk from religious fanatics as a result of the fatwa. 'It is also his case that there will be no sufficiency of protection for him against such groups in Pakistan and that he would not be able to relocate to an area where he would be safe. '[He] also claims that his removal from the United Kingdom would be a breach of his Article 8 rights as he has a partner and child in the United Kingdom.' Ahmed claimed there was a 'leaflet in existence containing the same photograph as the newspaper article', which he said was being 'distributed by local extremists'. He also claimed 'armed individuals came to the family home looking for him' in Pakistan and that his father was sh0t and k!lled. The Home Office has disputed the existence of newspaper reports in Pakistan. Ahmed summoned an expert Pakistani witness to appear at his last asylum hearing in 2024 - Asad Ali Khan, an advocate of the High Courts in Pakistan. Mr Khan said the reporting in Pakistan appeared to be legitimate. Ahmed lost the hearing in 2024 with the judge at the time dismissing what the expert had to say. But now, the Upper Tribunal has ruled that the judge in 2024 made a mistake in law by failing to make a 'sustainable' finding about the expert's opinion. Expert Mr Khan told the hearing: 'Moreover the pamphlet/leaflet which has been produced in respect of [Ahmed] (and has been distributed in Pakistan) is a tool to demonise [him] and malign him. 'It also contains a photograph of [him] and states on his return to Pakistan he will be punished in accordance with Sharia law. 'I see many such examples of propaganda material which are so clearly to be against private citizens. 'I have examined [Ahmed's] documents and they bear all the traditional hallmarks of legal, propaganda and media documents in Pakistan which are used to victimise persons such as [Ahmed] who are in difficulties with the law in the UK.' It was heard Mr Khan only saw 'photocopies of newspapers and their translations' and 'the articles in question being cut out rather than identified as being on a full page of the newspaper'. The Upper Tribunal, presided over by Judge Jeremy Rintoul, found that proper rulings need to be made about the expert's evidence, Ahmed's wife's evidence, and about documents related to the case. Judge Rintoul said: 'I consider that, cumulatively, the judge [in 2024] has failed to reach sustainable conclusions with respect to the documents, the wife's evidence and the expert's opinion.'
0 Comments