Amid Political Pressure, Britain Moves to Deport the Rochdale Rapist

Facing extreme political pressure to act on the case of convicted mass rapist Shabir Ahmed, the British government now proposes to give itself powers to deport him – but the legislation could take up to a year to enact, and his removal from the United Kingdom is not guaranteed.

Ahmed, 73, is currently living freely in the UK, having served 14 years of a 22-year prison sentence imposed after he was convicted of having been the ringleader of the infamous Rochdale grooming gang that targeted an unknown number of young white girls for sexual exploitation in the early 2000s. Upon his conviction, he was stripped of his British citizenship, meaning that he is legally now Pakistani, not British. However, because he arrived in the UK from a Commonwealth country – i.e. a country once part of the British Empire – before 1971, he is exempt from deportation under a law which guarantees residency to such persons.

You might be interested The British State: All-Powerful Against the Law-Abiding, Powerless Against the Wicked

The solution favored by His Majesty’s government is therefore not to persuade the courts that Ahmed should be removed under the existing law, but to change the law itself. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood is set to propose legislation which would create an exception to the protection enjoyed by pre-1971 Commonwealth migrants where they have committed exceptionally serious offences.

Awkward Realities

Yet there are at least two awkward realities which ministers have been reluctant to emphasize.

The first is time. Even assuming the legislation survives Parliament unamended, it is unlikely to reach the statute book for many months. Every stage of the legislative process offers opportunities for delay, amendment and challenge from left-wingers concerned that future governments will use it to enforce widespread deportations. Even if the law is passed, any eventual deportation order would itself almost certainly generate years of litigation. Immigration lawyers have built entire practices around testing the limits of deportation law, and few cases would present a higher-profile opportunity than this one.

The second is that changing domestic law does not automatically overcome Britain’s obligations under international law. Any attempt to remove Ahmed would almost inevitably be challenged under the European Convention on Human Rights, with arguments likely to center on his age, his length of residence in Britain, his family life and whether Pakistan could safely and lawfully receive him. Ministers may ultimately prevail. Equally, they may discover that winning a vote in Westminster is rather easier than winning a case in Strasbourg.

Uncomfortable Questions of Sovereignty

Which raises an uncomfortable question. If Parliament is sovereign, why is the government talking in such cautious language? Ministers repeatedly say they are seeking the “power” to deport Ahmed, rather than promising that he will in fact be deported. That choice of words is interesting, if not outright revealing. It reflects an awareness that, in modern Britain, immigration law has become an intricate web of domestic statutes, international treaties and judicial precedent in which no outcome can ever be guaranteed.

That uncertainty is precisely why Ahmed’s case has resonated so widely. Few people regard the legal niceties surrounding his immigration status as especially compelling when set against the scale of his crimes. Ahmed was not convicted of a technical immigration offence or a minor public-order matter. He was convicted of organizing the systematic sexual abuse of vulnerable children. To many members of the public, if the law prevents the removal of such a man, then it is the law – not the deportation – that appears extraordinary.

Indeed, perhaps the most striking aspect of the entire affair is what it reveals about the modern British state. At almost every stage of this saga, ministers have presented themselves not as the authors of public policy but as relatively helpless observers of it, explaining why apparently obvious outcomes cannot be achieved because some legal obstacle, treaty obligation, historical statute or judicial precedent stands in the way.

That may all be perfectly accurate. Britain is a country governed by law, and there are good reasons why governments cannot simply expel people at the stroke of a ministerial pen. The protections which exist for unpopular individuals are, after all, the same protections that exist for everyone else. It is precisely because governments cannot arbitrarily strip people of their rights that liberal democracies distinguish themselves from authoritarian states.

You might be interested Chasing Muslim Votes, Burnham Dons a Rhetorical Keffiyah

A Deportation Vital for Public Confidence

But there comes a point at which legal complexity begins to undermine public confidence in the legal order itself. If a man who organized the industrial-scale sexual abuse of children cannot readily be removed from the country after being stripped of British citizenship, many voters will inevitably conclude that the system has ceased to serve the public interest. Whether that conclusion is legally sophisticated is almost beside the point. Politics is driven by legitimacy as much as legality.

It is no coincidence that the government is legislating only now. Ahmed was released from prison months ago. The legal obstacles preventing his deportation were not discovered yesterday; rather, they have existed for decades. What has changed is the shape and tenor of British politics, and the fact that the issue has become impossible to ignore because public opinion has shifted decisively against computer-says-no politics when it comes to immigration.