Fraudster can stay in UK because ‘his children do not speak Czech'

Telegraph

2 days ago

A convicted fraudster from the Czech Republic has been allowed to stay in Britain after claiming that his children do not speak Czech.
An immigration tribunal found it would be 'unduly harsh' on Jan Balog's children, aged three and six, if he was deported back to the Czech Republic.
The Home Office had argued that the children would be able to learn the language of his home country. But the appeal was rejected and Balog was allowed to stay in the UK on the basis that his deportation would breach his rights to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example uncovered by The Telegraph in which illegal migrants or convicted foreign criminals have been able to remain in the UK or halt their deportations on human rights grounds.
Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has announced plans to curb judges' powers to block deportations with new legally enforced 'common sense' rules to clarify how they interpret Article 8 of the ECHR and strengthen the public interest test.
Balog came to the UK when he was 10 before being granted indefinite leave to remain under an EU settlement scheme. But between 2010 and 2013, he was convicted of three offences for fraud and false representation, leading to a three-and-a-half-year jail sentence.
A judge at the first-tier tribunal allowed Balog's appeal against deportation in December last year because this would be 'unduly harsh on his children'. The judge found: 'The children would lose access to education and healthcare in the UK. They would also be deprived of care from their grandparents.
'It is noted that they do not speak Czech and that they will be in a place where the mother has never lived before. On this basis, it is held that it would be unduly harsh.'
The judge concluded that Balog had experienced 'significant social and cultural integration in the UK' after spending most of his life in the country. The tribunal heard that he was in a relationship with someone from the Slovak Republic.
'It was concluded that it would be harsh for the children to relocate to the Czech Republic as they do not speak the language,' the upper-tier tribunal was told. [Balog's] appeal therefore succeeded on human rights grounds.'
The Home Office appealed against this decision, arguing that 'the judge failed to explain how the children would be detrimentally impacted by his absence'. It said that 'the children are young and could adapt to change'.
However, Alexander Durance, the deputy upper tribunal judge, noted that Balog had been in work, which would mean the 'loss of emotional, financial and practical support' for his family.
'The judge held that modern communication could not mitigate the absence of the father. It was determined that it would be unduly harsh for the children to stay in the UK without [him]. In our judgment, the fact that travel to the Czech Republic is affordable does not alter the assessment that this would have an unduly harsh impact for the children.'
The judge concluded: 'In our judgment, the [Home Office] challenge is one of disagreement rather than an identification of any error of law. The judge directed himself to the relevant case law and applied it. Whilst this may not be a decision which we would have reached, it is one which was open to the judge for the reasons he gave.'