Murderer cannot be deported because rival gang would kill him
The killer won a human rights appeal at an immigration court after telling of his 'fear' of the powerful One Order gang on the Caribbean island.
The crime syndicate is said to be affiliated with the Jamaica Labour party and is accused of killings, extortion and drug dealing.
The Jamaican man claimed his family members had been killed by the One Order, and his sister had to be put into a witness protection programme.
The unnamed migrant – who has been in the UK since 1996 and committed murder – has mounted a legal fight for protection in Britain.
He argued that Britain must grant him asylum and not deport him back to Jamaica on human rights grounds because he will be 'targeted' by the One Order.
The Home Office tried to deport him and he lost an initial appeal against their decision at a first-tier immigration tribunal.. But, he has now won an appeal at the Upper Tribunal, which ruled he could be at risk from the gang if returned.
The Upper Tribunal found the lower court 'overlooked' key concerns about potential dangers for him in Jamaica and did not properly assess his 'credibility'. It ruled that his case must be heard again.
The case is the latest revealed by The Telegraph where foreign criminals have used Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to claim they would face persecution if deported. Ministers are planning to rewrite rules to make it harder to allow appeals against removal.
The One Order gang is said to be responsible for hundreds of killings over its rivalries with other gangs. One of its leaders, Othneil 'Thickman' Lobban, was this year gunned down and killed by police, sparking a violent backlash that closed schools and businesses.
The Upper Tribunal, sitting in Cardiff, was told that the unnamed Jamaican migrant seeking asylum 'fears being targeted in Jamaica by the One Order Gang' as 'his family have been targeted there'.
He has been in the UK since 1996, mostly without leave to remain. A judgment said he committed murder but did not specify details, other than that he has been through 'offender management' during his rehabilitation and now shows an 'admirable work ethic'.
The Jamaican argued that the first-tier tribunal judge had not properly considered key facts about his concerns about the One Order gang, which the Home Office had not disputed.
His sister was in a witness protection programme while his brothers had been shot in Jamaica and the family home was attacked.
Upper Tribunal Judge Sean O'Brien said the first-tier tribunal was mistaken in its ruling.
Judge O'Brien said: 'The [First-tier Tribunal] judge had overlooked the fact that the core elements of the [Jamaican's] account were not challenged by [the Home Office], had misunderstood [his] evidence about [his] family he claimed had been murdered because of gang retribution and when, and had given no apparent consideration to the attempts made to verify that [his] sister remained in Witness Protection.
'I agree therefore that the judge's findings on the credibility of the [Jamaican's] account of events in Jamaica involved the making of an error of law.'
Judge O'Brien cast doubt over elements of the migrant's claims and said because he has been away for so long, he may avoid being targeted.
But he said because of the previous 'erroneous' and 'unsustainable' ruling, a fresh hearing must be held.
'All in all, I cannot be satisfied that the judge would necessarily have found that the [Jamaican] would not be at risk from the One Order Gang had she taken a permissible approach to credibility', the judge added.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Landlord 'overwhelmed' by support after car crash
The owner of a Kent pub damaged when a car crashed into it has described the help he has received in rebuilding it as "totally amazing". The Pilot Inn in Dungeness was hit by a vehicle in the early hours of 10 August. The pub has been able to stay partially open but has been fully restored in time for the August bank holiday weekend. A man has been charged with drink driving and driving while unfit and is due to appear in court next week. Owner Niko Miaoulis said: "A huge thank you to all of our staff, customers, friends, family, that have helped, even just through good wishes in the past couple of weeks, it's totally amazing. "I'm overwhelmed by the generosity and the goodness in people. Even this morning we ran out of varnish, and we went to the manufacturers in New Romney, they took us into the factory and gave us it for free." He added that he initially feared for the future of the pub. "We thought, 'oh my God, how are we ever going to fulfil the business that we need to?'. "This is our busiest period to carry us through the winter. How can we possibly get this back up and running again? And we did, 10 days and it's back up and running." Joiner and family friend Bradley Sullivan, from Folkestone, has been working on the restoration. "We've been doing 16-hour days, and we've had to tie that in with the running of the restaurant, so it's been very tricky," he said. "I've known the Miaoulis family for 30 years and I really felt for them because this is their passion. They've put so much effort into it, it was horrible to see what happened. "There's a good community around here, we've had some great help." Follow BBC Kent on Facebook, on X, and on Instagram. Send your story ideas to southeasttoday@ or WhatsApp us on 08081 002250. More on this story Man charged after car crashes through pub wall Related internet links The Pilot Inn Kent Police
San Francisco Chronicle
39 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Court ruling complicates UK government's efforts to house asylum seekers
LONDON (AP) — The dilemma of how to house asylum seekers in Britain got more challenging for the government after a landmark court ruling this week motivated opponents to fight hotels used as accommodation. Politicians on the right capitalized on a temporary injunction that blocked housing asylum seekers in a hotel in Epping, on the outskirts of London, to encourage other communities to also go to court. The issue is at the heart of a heated public debate over how to control unauthorized immigration that has bedeviled countries across the West as an influx of migrants seeking a better life as they flee war-torn countries, poverty, regions wracked by climate change or political persecution. In the U.K., the debate has focused on the arrival of migrants crossing the English Channel in overloaded boats run by smugglers and escalating tensions over housing thousands of asylum seekers at government expense around the country. Here's a look at the issue: The hotels The government is legally obligated to house asylum seekers. Using hotels to do so had been a marginal issue until 2020, when the number of asylum seekers increased sharply and the then-Conservative government had to find new ways to house them. There have been more than 27,000 unauthorized arrivals so far this year, nearly 50% higher than at the same point last year and ahead of the number at this time of year in 2022, when a record 45,755 came ashore. The number of asylum seekers housed in hotels stood at just over 32,000 at the end of June, according to Home Office figures released Thursday. That figure was up 8% from about 29,500 a year earlier but far below the peak of more than 56,000 in September 2023. A total of 111,084 people applied for asylum in the year to June 2025, the highest number for any 12-month period since current records began in 2001. In May, the National Audit Office said those temporarily living in hotels accounted for 35% of all people in asylum accommodation. The Epping case Anti-migrant protesters and counter-protesters gathered for weeks outside the Bell Hotel in Epping after news that a hotel resident tried to kiss a 14-year-old girl and was charged with sexual assault. The man has denied the accusation and is due to stand trial later this month. Epping Forest District Council sought a temporary injunction to shut down the hotel because of 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption,' which had led to several arrests. The High Court decision in favor of the council has the potential to spread elsewhere and government ministers are scrambling to work out what they can do if other councils manage to win similar rulings. However, the Epping decision was based on planning laws, which may not apply elsewhere. The politics Many politicians, such as Reform U.K. leader Nigel Farage, have sought to link many of the problems the country faces, such as health and housing, with migrant arrivals. Others, including the government, argue that the likes of Farage are whipping up the issue for political gain and that there are no easy answers to an issue affecting many European countries. The leader of the main opposition Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, urged Tory councils all over the country to launch legal challenges similar to that of Epping if their legal advice allowed. The ruling Labour Party dismissed her appeal as 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense,' but several Labour-led councils have also suggested they, too, could mount legal action against asylum hotels in their areas. The worry is that the tensions could explode into the sort of violence that ravaged many towns and cities in England last summer in the wake of a stabbing rampage at a dance class that left three girls dead and several wounded. Government options The government's first priority is to sharply decrease the number of dangerous channel crossings. Having ditched the Conservative administration's plan to send migrants who arrived by unauthorized means to Rwanda, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said his government would disrupt the gangs profiting off migrant trafficking. The government is also looking to speed up processing asylum claims and hoping a deal with France to send migrants who cross the channel back back to France will succeed as a deterrent for others. Whether those plans succeed or not, however, the issue of what to do with the tens of thousands of asylum seekers in the country remains. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the government is looking for contingency options. The government scrapped the use of a barge to house migrants off the south coast earlier this year and plans to end housing at military barracks in Kent next month. But a former air base in Essex is expected to add more beds for men seeking asylum. The easiest option would most likely house asylum seekers in the private sector, but that risks compounding problems in the rental market in a country where housebuilding has been low for years.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Noel Clarke set to learn outcome of libel claim against Guardian publisher
Actor Noel Clarke is set to discover whether he has been successful in his High Court libel claim against the publisher of the Guardian on Friday. Clarke, 49, is suing Guardian News and Media (GNM) over seven articles and a podcast, including an article in April 2021 that said 20 women who knew him professionally had come forward with allegations of misconduct. Clarke denies the allegations, while GNM is defending its reporting as being both true and in the public interest. A trial earlier this year heard from multiple witnesses who made accusations against Clarke, including that he had allegedly shared nude photographs of them without their consent, groped them, and asked them to look at him when he was exposed. Barristers for Clarke told the court that there is a conspiracy of people with financial and personal grudges against him who engineered his downfall because they could not bear to see him receive a Bafta award. Mrs Justice Steyn is set to hand down her ruling at 10.30am on Friday. The trial of the libel claim was held from early March to early April at the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Clarke, who has previously appeared in TV shows including Doctor Who, Auf Wiedersehen, Pet and Bulletproof, gave evidence over several days. At one stage, he appeared visibly emotional as he claimed the publisher had 'smashed my life'. He said: 'They have smashed my life for four years with this rubbish, this nonsense. Four years.' He continued: 'I did not do this, I would not do this. I have got children. This is not true.' He later said that while he was 'a flawed guy', he added: 'The reason I stand here four years later is I am not what they have branded me.' Philip Williams, representing the actor, said that his client was a 'casualty' of a media 'purge' following the emergence of the MeToo movement. He continued that Clarke was made a 'scapegoat' and was an 'easy target' because he was at the height of his success when the media industry 'zealously sought to correct itself'. The barrister also criticised the Guardian's investigation, saying the newspaper 'manifestly failed to do its job properly'.Mr Williams asked the court to find the claim successful, saying the Guardian's reporting has caused serious harm to Clarke's career, with 'continuing hostile reactions online and in public discourse'. Gavin Millar KC, for GNM, said there is 'not a shred of evidence' to support Clarke's claim of a conspiracy, describing it as 'nonsensical and rather desperate speculation'. He said Clarke has a 'very clear motive to lie' because he 'stands to lose a great deal'. In written submissions, Mr Millar said Clarke 'used his power to prey on and harass female colleagues' over a period of 15 years. He said: 'This was a careful and thorough investigation conducted conscientiously by Guardian journalists who were aware of the potential pitfalls. 'They received information from a wide range of sources with direct evidence of misconduct and in each case carefully considered and tested the information they were given, electing to publish only such information as they believed was credible.'
