LONDON: A former Pakistani police officer who beat and threatened suspects in Pakistan faces deportation after senior judges ruled Britain is not a ‘safe haven’ for those who commit ‘crimes against humanity’, according to a report by Daily Mail.
London’s Appeal Court heard Tanvir Babar, 56, was a squad leader in the 1990s in Pakistan, where the police ‘routinely and systematically’ used brutality against those they arrested.
He had admitted beating suspects during interviews and was in control of 20 to 30 men who acted in a similar way.
Babar ‘turned over a new leaf’ and, since arriving in the UK in 2000, has worked hard, run a business and has a close-knit family.
But he was excluded from refugee status because of his past as a police officer in Pakistan, and the Home Office refused him indefinite leave to remain.
That decision was overturned on appeal by an immigration tribunal judge, who said the ‘positive considerations’ outweighed his past behaviour.
However, after the Home Office challenged the decision at the Appeal Court, Sir Patrick Elias said the judge did not take enough account of Babar’s past crimes.
The judge stated,”I do not accept that the commission of these offences against humanity necessarily and inevitably meant that Babar could in no circumstances be granted indefinite leave to remain”.
‘However, in my judgment, the tribunal judge did not give proper weight to the very powerful justification for denying the settlement to those who have committed crimes against humanity.
‘The UK should not be a safe haven for those who committed such offences, and it would be a breach of the UK’s international obligations, and would undermine its international standing, to be seen to give protection to such individuals save in very exceptional circumstances.’
The court found Babar’s work record and family life did not amount to ‘exceptional circumstances’ and therefore declared he was not entitled to remain in the UK.
Mr Babar now faces removal from the UK unless an immigration tribunal finds his deportation would interfere with his right to a family life.
