Violent rapist allowed to stay in UK to rape again

[Trint]

Is there already a thread on this case? I will ask for this one to be removed if so. I am just angry that this horrible man’s feelings were put before the fact that he had a fetish about violent rape.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ye594p0z0o
It is quite wrong that the judge ordered he should be allowed to stay in the UK when it was clear to the Home Office that he would rape again.
Sorry, I have tried to insert a question about there being an inquiry into the decision of the judge to let him stay to rape women again but my phone won’t let me.

“But the fact that Oladele would be "a complete outsider should he relocate to Nigeria" and that he had a "developed private life having grown up in the United Kingdom" outweighed the public interest in deporting him.”

I wonder what they mean by “grew up here”. I am not supporting of the UK throwing its rubbish into other people’s gardens. If he has been here since 3 months I would understand the court’s position. But if he has only been here since he was 12-14+ I would find it weird.

Any decision by a government body can be challenged in court - that's literally what living in a country where the government is bound by the rule of law is about.

If you want to live in a country where the government is not bound by the rule of law then there are plenty of options.

All offences which carry in a sentence of one year or more carry a presumption of automatic deportation at the end of the sentence - put that can be challenged in court, no different to a decision made by your local planning department, or the department of education. Governments are not immune from the law.

Why should a convicted rapist have rights that can outweigh the public interest in not having him rape again?

I think there is a very strong argument for life imprisonment where someone is driven to commit sexual crimes and we don't understand how to "cure" them. I don't think he should be released.

I don't think we can deport people who are born in this country and are British citizens because they commit crimes. He's our problem. We should keep him locked up and keep all women, Nigerian or British, safe

They could have attended the hearing and cross-examined him.

Even if it is (and I don't think its long enough) he won't actually be locked up for 17 years.

This does massively complicate things (and before anybody starts - NO it’s not because I have sympathy for criminals).

It seems he’s Nigerian only insofar as he has a passport and a parent from there. But actually not Nigerian in any meaningful sense.

I understand the previous decision a little more now.

That said I would have no issue with him being deported after his current sentence. I think arguing for a human rights consideration requires a commitment to being a decent citizen on his part which clearly he is not willing to do.

(I also recognise deporting him doesn’t keep women safe, only some women safe. Locking him up for life no parole keeps all women safe - I would support that too.)

He wasn't born in this country. He was born in Italy and is a Nigerian citizen by birth. Of course he can be deported, regardless of whether or not he has any links with Nigeria.

And hopefully he will be at the end of this sentence - it seems that the HO really screwed up with the previous deportation event and didn't even send their own lawyers to the tribunal.

Yep and why does the entire system make it less safe to women and girls? Obviously given backlash on here whenever system criticism comes up not even all women mind, in fact it bothers them more that women speak up about it.

The law in committing a crime for a foreign national is clear. The law said he should have been deported after the first offence. The judge stepped in against the Home Office’s advice with a lot of rubbish about it might be hard for him in Nigeria and he was free to rape here again. The judge’s decision making should be questioned.
I cannot believe the posters suggesting that somehow foreign countries like Nigeria are not fit for purpose when dealing with rapists. Their country, their law. It is so patronising to suggest that we won’t deport foreign criminals because we don’t trust legal systems in other countries ( and racist to boot)

I am generally in favour of deporting foreign criminals, but let's not pretend doing so in this case would have stopped women from being raped. He would just have raped Nigerian women instead.

I'm also baffled he was not deported.

But I also worry about articles like this. I think it portrays immigrants as a significant factor in VAWG and the fact is it's men. Men of all ethnicities. I've been raped by three different men. All white. Only one of the cases made the press because he was a Z list celebrity who attacked a lot of of women but it only made the press in a tiny way. You wouldn't remember it.

Fact is yes, violent offenders even those who have been brought up in the UK but were not born here should have their status revoked. But the much bigger issue is appallingly low conviction rates and sentences for men who commit rape and other violent crimes against women. I really wish those on the hard right wing of politics could get as passionately angry about that.

I'm well aware of that hurdle but presumably the HO applied for him to be deported because he could be deported to Nigeria, he is apparently a Nigerian citizen.
The Govt has already imposed sanctions and visa restrictions on countries that refuse to take back their citizens.

Laws can always be changed

He wasn't deported after the first offence because he appealed the deportation order and the tribunal judge sided with him - seemingly after the Home Office failed to attend the hearing.

Yes but my point is it's missing the point.

His immigration status is a bit murky because of where he was born and then by stating his nationality is Nigeria, it's essentially a country he has no links to. It's deporting him based on his parent's nationality, not his. It's entirely likely Nigeria would have refused (much like the Begum case).

But immigration status aside, there are plenty of men as violent, as dangerous but white and British. Nowhere to deport them to and as others have pointed out, deporting him just moves the issue for him to rape others.

Rapists often commit a lot of crimes before being caught if they're caught at all. And when they are caught, they almost always get away with it. That's a problem with our justice system and with the men who commit rape more than it's a problem with our immigration system.

This is a really interesting idea, but there aren’t many female judges 🙄

@ColinOfficeTrolley and @Backedoffhackedoff I would agree with that idea and if there aren't enough then change it.

In my case, there was a male CPS barrister, male defence barrister, male judge. Some of the judge's comments were clueless. Absolutely ridiculous. I can't go into detail here due to reporting restrictions but he discounted something which to any woman would have been obvious to be an impossibility.

But also there is a place for legislation and sentencing guidelines to change. And probation service to be more cautious for offenders who have committed VAWG.

As it is, now victims have the right to make statements to parole hearings, however instead of making it more just it means victims end up feeling the weight of having to keep dangerous offenders in prison.

I'm really interested in your view that the law is clear. It's incredibly complicated!

The Home Office don't give "advice," they make a decision which is appealable.

The deportation decision was made on the strength of the 2 year sentence for false imprisonment. At this stage he had not been convicted of rape and nobody knew that he would be in future.

The law is that there is a presumption in favour of deporting a foreign criminal who has received a sentence of more than 1 and less than 4 years, unless certain exceptions apply. One of them is that the person is "socially and culturally integrated" AND that there would be "very significant obstacles to their integration in the country to which they would be deported."

The HO in this case appear to have argued that the appellant wasn't socially and culturally integrated even though he had been here since infancy. You might think that's a pretty weak argument and that they might have done better to focus on the material realities of how he would integrate to Nigeria.

Very significant obstacles to integration are clearly in play when it is proposed to deport someone to a country they have never even visited.

The HO didn't turn up to cross examine him about his attitudes to women, the extent of his rehabilitation or whether he had any extended family ties in Nigeria, or even whether his UK based family would send financial support, all of which would be relevant to the "very significant obstacles". He said that he was rehabilitated and more importantly, Probation supported that and assessed him as being at a low risk of reoffending (plainly this turned out to be wrong with the benefit of hindsight).

It may be that the judge would have come to a different conclusion if the evidence before him had been that the appellant was at high risk of serious sexual reoffending and / or there had been evidence in cross-examination about how he would practically live in Nigeria. But the judge can only make the decision on the evidence that is available to him.

@FernandoSor
I't was an immigration tribunal judge (Judge James Simpson) who let him remain in the country, not the judge in his initial trial for false imprisonment, who recommended he be deported.'
Why can an immigration judge overrule the law and the Home Office and allow a convicted foreign rapist to remain in the UK because he thought the rapists rights were more important. It is absolutely wrong and the immigration judge should be asked to apologize to the poor victims of Oladele.
I hope the huge wave of repulsion about the details of this case, filters back to the Immigration Department and this judge in particular and awkward questions are asked. It seems completely wrong that an immigration judge has the right to overturn law and the Home Office in favour of Oladele's 'human rights'.

We have enough rapist in the UK without allowing more to be imported. Far better screening is needed for immigrants.

Absolutely agree we should deal with home grown rapists and sex offenders. I have not stated anywhere we shouldn’t.

But the current system fails again and again in dealing with these particularly egregious criminals, and protecting women.

That does not preclude utilisation of all levers available in these fewer cases where deportation is an option, which can better protect us.

Why can an immigration judge overrule the law and the Home Office and allow a convicted foreign rapist to remain in the UK

1. the judge applied the law, he didn't overrule it
2. Oladele was not a convicted foreign rapist at the time of the immigration hearing because he had not at that time been convicted of rape

It is overwhelmingly likely that the deportation order will now be upheld, because he is now a convicted foreign rapist and the law is different for those with a sentence of over 4 years.

What sort of screening would have picked this offender up given that he came to the UK as a small child?

there is a massive problem with diversity of judges in this country. Not only are they mainly men, the are virtually all privately educated

it would take may years to attract enough women to the bench though