Violent Pole's deportation blocked because he is ‘father figure' to nephew
A violent Polish serial criminal's deportation was blocked under human rights laws after he claimed to be a 'father figure' to his nephew.
An immigration tribunal judge ruled that Konrad Makocki, who has nine convictions, had a close enough relationship with his nephew for his deportation to be a breach of his right to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Nawraz Karbani, the judge in the matter, said his teenage nephew would suffer a 'disproportionate' impact if he was deported even though Macocki had 'struggled with alcoholism', been convicted of violence and was subject to a domestic abuse restraining order to prevent him approaching his ex-partner.
The Home Office has appealed the 'perverse' decision, which has resulted in an upper tribunal judge setting it aside and asking for it to be reheard.
The case, disclosed in court papers, is the latest example exposed by The Telegraph where migrants or convicted foreign criminals have used human rights laws to remain in the UK or halt their deportations.
They include an Albanian criminal who avoided deportation after claiming his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, and a Pakistani paedophile jailed for child sex offences but who escaped removal from the UK as it would be 'unduly harsh' on his own children.
Last week issues raised by the cases dominated Prime Minister's Questions. Sir Keir Starmer described as 'wrong' a tribunal decision to allow a Palestinian family to live in the UK after they applied through a scheme for Ukrainian refugees.
He said Parliament, not judges, should make the rules on immigration and pledged that Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, would work on closing the loophole.
There are a record 34,169 outstanding immigration appeals, largely on human rights grounds, which threaten to hamper Labour's efforts to fast-track the removal of thousands of illegal migrants and head off the threat from Reform UK.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, claimed the latest case of the Polish migrant showed immigration judges were 'out of control' and stretched the definition of family life under the ECHR 'ever further'.
'As a result, every day the British public are being exposed to the risk of his mindless violence,' he said.
'This immigration judge seems to care more about this violent criminal's rights than about protecting the public here by sending him back to Poland. With each one of these shocking cases unearthed by The Telegraph, the case for radical changes to human rights law gets stronger.'
Makocki came to Britain in 2009 and has been convicted on six occasions of nine offences including assault, battery, cannabis possession, racial or religious harassment and threatening behaviour. He was jailed in 2021 for 10 months, with a two-year restraining order to prevent him from approaching his ex-partner.
The Home Office ordered his deportation shortly after he sought EU settlement in the UK. Although he had not undergone any formal rehabilitation, Makocki told the court he was 'now sober and intends to stay that way', expressed remorse and had pleaded guilty to all offences.
Judge Karbani backed his claim that deportation would be 'unduly harsh' on his nephew, the threshold for an ECHR breach: 'I am satisfied he offers practical assistance to his sister and nephew in a relationship akin to being a father figure, and this will not be able to continue at any comparable level if [Makocki] is deported.'
However, the verdict was challenged by Matthew Hoffman, an upper tribunal judge, who said there was 'no suggestion' Makocki lived with his nephew before he was jailed or to what extent he played a part in his life.
Judge Hoffman also said he could not 'discern what particular facts of the case' supported the claim that the nephew would suffer 'severe or bleak' consequences from Makocki's deportation.
'Irrespective of the fact that [Makocki] is not even the parent of the child in question, I am satisfied that the judge failed to identify any consequences that would befall the nephew that would engage the necessary degree of harshness,' he said.
Ordering the case to be reconsidered, Judge Hoffman expressed concern that it had taken two and a half years before he heard the Home Office appeal, which meant Makocki could have found a new partner, strengthening his claim to stay in the UK under article eight rights to a family life.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs call for action on benefits after winter fuel U-turn
Labour MPs have broadly welcomed the government's decision to reinstate winter fuel payments for three-quarters of pensioners but some are using the U-turn to renew their calls for planned benefit cuts to be reversed. Nine million pensioners in England and Wales with an annual income of £35,000 or less will now be eligible for up to £300 to help with energy bills this winter. Labour MPs thanked the government for listening to their concerns, arguing means testing the payment was fair but that the threshold was set too low last year. However, several urged ministers to also think again on planned cuts to disability payments, while others called for the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped. Under planned changes to the benefits system it would be harder for people with less severe conditions to claim personal independence payments (Pips), while the government is promising more support to help people get into work. While the two-child benefit cap policy prevents most families from claiming means-tested benefits for any third or additional children born after April 2017, which critics say has pushed people into poverty. Ministers are considering lifting the cap, with a decision expected in the autumn, when a child poverty strategy is published. Pressure from Labour backbenchers over the issues - as well as on winter fuel payments - has been growing since the party's poor performance at local election's in May. The winter fuel payment was previously paid to all pensioners but last year the government announced only those receiving pension credit or another means-tested benefit would be eligible in England and Wales. The original cut last year was estimated to save £1.7bn, with the government arguing it was necessary because of the state of the public finances. But the move, which meant more than 10 million pensioners did not receive the payment in 2024, was criticised by charities, unions, opposition parties and many Labour MPs. Following mounting pressure, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a U-turn last month, with the details of who will get the payment this winter set out on Monday. The chancellor said she would detail how the £1.25bn policy would be paid for in the autumn Budget. How much is the winter fuel payment and who will get it? Labour hope to put winter fuel misstep behind them At-a-glance: Key changes to benefits in welfare shake-up Imran Hussain was among the Labour MPs to call for the planned benefit cuts to be scrapped in response to a government statement in the Commons on changes to winter fuel payments. "It is clear the government has listened, so I ask them to listen again to the growing calls in this chamber and scrap their planned, devastating cuts to disability support," the MP for Bradford East said. Fellow Labour MPs Nadia Whittome and Richard Burgon also welcomed the winter fuel U-turn but urged the government to listen to backbench concerns over benefit cuts. In response, Torsten Bell, who is both a Treasury minister and pensions minister, told MPs there needed to be "a better system focusing on supporting those who can work into work". He added that the status quo - where 1,000 people a day are going onto Pips - was not "a position that anybody should support". Labour MP Rachael Maskell, who has been a leading campaigner for restoring winter fuel payments, welcomed the government's change in policy, saying it was "long overdue". She told BBC Radio 4's World at One programme the £35,000 salary threshold for the payment was a "sensible measure". However, Maskell called on the government to consider a larger payment following increases in energy prices over the past year. The MP for York Central also urged a rethink on planned benefit cuts, adding: "You can't rob disabled people in order to pay older people, that doesn't make sense." Meanwhile, she was among several MPs to reiterate their calls for the government to scrap the two-child benefit cap. In the Commons Rebecca Long Bailey, Labour MP for Salford, also asked for reassurances minsters "are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible" to bring children out of poverty. In response Bell said "all levers to reduce child poverty are on the table". The minister added: "She's absolutely right to raise this issue, it is one of the core purposes of this government. "We cannot carry on with a situation where large families, huge percentages of them, are in poverty." The Conservatives have called for the government to apologise to pensioners who lost out on winter fuel payments last year. Shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately described the U-turn as "the most humiliating climbdown a government has ever faced in its first year in office". She told the Commons "this rushed reversal raises as many questions as it answers", arguing the move was "totally unfunded" and could lead to tax rises. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "Finally the chancellor has listened to the Liberal Democrats and the tireless campaigners in realising how disastrous this policy was, but the misery it has caused cannot be overstated. "Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating all whilst the government buried its head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who were really suffering." Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Private sector wages should not be the business of Government
For far too long, British politicians have created laws and systems that outsource decisions to the courts. All of this has been done with the best intentions, but too little consideration has been given to the unintended consequences, and the outcomes have been perverse. Thanks to a spate of absurd rulings, including the Albanian criminal allowed to stay in the UK partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets, many are aware of the impact on efforts to control our borders. But the problem is much broader, impacting everything from planning to energy. Increasingly, tribunal judgments are even telling businesses what they should pay their workers. If that sounds crazy, it's because it is. All jobs are different; all people are different too. In theory, setting pay is hard, because the pros and cons of different roles depend on individual preferences. In practice it's easy. You don't have to sit down and work out a weighted aggregate of a job's different pros and cons to different people; the market does that for you. You can start hiring, and you'll find out pretty quickly how much you need to pay to fill a role. This is so obvious that it almost isn't worth saying. But it's not what our laws say. The Equality Act, passed in 2010, mandates 'equal pay for equal work', doubling down on the Equal Pay Act of 1970. But what is 'equal work'? According to the Equality Act, it isn't where two people do the same job. It's not even where two people do similar jobs. In fact, the Equality Act says, the only way to tell if two jobs are 'equal' is to conduct a 'job evaluation study'. Rather than letting the job market determine fair pay, bureaucrats and judges use a host of arbitrary criteria to decide what a role is worth. What does that look like in practice? Last August, a six-year case concluded against the retailer Next. The company was sued by three women, current and former workers, who insisted that store staff (mostly women) should be paid as much as warehouse workers (slight majority male). Any of the store staff could have moved to the warehouse if they wanted more money. In fact, Next were desperate for them to – the company had a recruitment drive for the warehouse among store employees. But very few people wanted those roles because working on the shop floor was pleasant and working in the warehouse was not. One of the women who brought the case admitted that she would only have considered moving to the warehouse for 'a lot more money.' Incredibly, Next lost. The court decided the two roles should be paid the same. The same thing is happening to Asda. And Birmingham council was effectively bankrupted by an equal pay claim brought by (mostly female) cleaners complaining they weren't paid as much as the (mostly male) binmen. We should be grateful anyone is willing to do work that's backbreaking, dirty or dangerous. They deserve to be paid fairly; often more than people who don't want to do that. But now bureaucrats have come in to fix what isn't broken and insist that what is fair is actually unfair. This undermines our economy and it needs to stop. Katie Lam is the Conservative MP for Weald of Kent 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.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The benefits system is out of control
The decision to axe the winter fuel payment for most pensioners must rank among the most ill-judged policies introduced by a Chancellor in recent times, and there is strong competition for that accolade. Rachel Reeves made the decision shortly after taking office because she said it was necessary to help plug a £22 billion 'black hole' she had discovered in the nation's finances. Her argument might have had some merit had she not then blown much of the savings on pay rises for train drivers and public sector workers. The juxtaposition of help for Labour's union allies while pensioners shivered rapidly became toxic for the Government, generating one of the fastest reversals of support for any new administration. In the end, with Reform advancing in the polls – and pledging to restore the payment – Sir Keir Starmer ordered a screeching U-turn which the Government maintains is possible because the economy is doing so well, as if anyone believes that. Now, instead of around 1.5 million older people on pensioner credit receiving the payment, it will be paid to about nine million OAPs with an income below £35,000. Why this figure has been chosen is as much a mystery as other 'cliff edge' sums that abound in our overly complex tax and benefit system. Indeed, this U-turn just makes it even more convoluted. Everyone will receive the payment but it will then be clawed back from an estimated two million people earning more than the £35,000 threshold via PAYE or a tax return. In other words, yet more red tape will be imposed to make a quarter of pensioners return an allowance that began life in 1997 as a universal benefit. Although many better-off pensioners often said they did not need the money, and many gave it to charity every Christmas, at least it was straightforward. To some extent so was limiting it to people on pensioner credit, since that is already linked to income. But what is now proposed is a dog's breakfast, with opt-outs and other implications still to be resolved. Tomorrow, Ms Reeves will unveil her spending plans for the next four years. She is being urged to get a grip on the rapidly expanding benefits budget; but if this experience is to be our guide, there is little chance that it will ever be reined in. 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.
