Another day, another reminder that getting rid of foreign criminals is less about political willpower and more about a legal system that treats deportation like an optional extra. On 15 July the Court of Appeal politely told the Home Office where to stick its latest attempt to send Mohammed Sury Dabo packing.
The case, Mohammed Sury Dabo v Secretary of State for the Home Department EWCA Civ 907, had its hearing on 2 July. The Home Office was appealing an Upper Tribunal decision that had backed the First-tier Tribunal's ruling. That original ruling let Dabo stay on human rights grounds. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, keeping the status quo firmly in place.
Dabo arrived in the UK in 2007 as an unaccompanied child and was given discretionary leave. By 2011 he was here unlawfully. He has a criminal history. The Home Office, quite reasonably one might think, started deportation proceedings. Dabo resisted on human rights grounds. The tribunals agreed with him. The Court of Appeal has now rubber-stamped that view.
A familiar script
This is the sort of procedural dance that has become depressingly routine. A foreign national commits crimes on British soil, the authorities decide enough is enough, and then the courts step in to weigh "private and family life" against the public interest in actually enforcing the rules. The independent judiciary is doing exactly what it is there for, of course. But the rest of us are left wondering why the scales always seem to tip the same way.
The decision underscores the practical difficulties of achieving effective returns. Public safety and national sovereignty are nice ideas until they run into the thicket of Article 8 claims and appeals that stretch on for years. Dabo has been unlawfully resident since 2011. That is not a short stay. Yet here we are, still arguing about whether he can be removed.
The outcome reinforces the role of tribunals and courts in assessing individual circumstances against immigration rules.
Recent parliamentary chatter has highlighted the broader struggle with foreign national offenders. Numbers deported are up, apparently, but the hurdles remain formidable. Cases like this one make you suspect the real problem is not a lack of legislation but a framework that treats every removal as a potential human rights crisis.
