Let ’em all stay

You couldn’t make it up. A judge in the UK shortened the sentence of Jamaican drug dealer Vincent Miller, who had previously been deported twice and stole identities to return and evade capture for ten years, to prevent him being deported (again) on the grounds that sending him home would be ‘devastating’ for his three children.

A 12 month sentence would have meant automatic deportation, so judge Farook Ahmed reduced the sentence to 11 months.

Miller arrived in Britain at Christmas in 2000 and was given permission to stay for only four days. He failed to return home and was subsequently arrested and deported in February 2001.

However, he returned at Easter under a stolen identity and lasted two years before being deported again for supplying class A drugs.

From abroad he successfully applied for a new passport in the name of Joseph Roche, who had no idea his identity had been stolen, and this identity theft allowed him to obtain a driving licence and start work as a barber.

As a result of his fraud, his wife and their three children, aged two, four and six, were able to claim UK citizenship.

An argument put forward is that the family, and children, are legally resident in the UK and his deportation would be ‘devastating’ for the children. However, if the citizenship of his family was obtained as the result of a crime, namely stealing someone else’s identity, then surely the better, or more logical option would be to deport the entire family.

He could then continue to deal his drugs in his home country, if he so desired, with his family around him.

And isn’t the judge in question actually perverting the course of justice by his actions, tailoring sentences to circumvent the law?

This is not, of course, the first case where criminals have been allowed to stay in the country based upon ‘family’ considerations, in some cases the ‘family’ not being a wife or children but a ‘girlfriend’.

The question is, if the criminal (obviously) has no consideration for his ‘family’ when engaging in illegal activity, why should the Court have any consideration when pronouncing sentence?

  1. In answer to your question: ‘If the criminal has no consideration for his family when engaging in illegal activity, why should the court have any consideration when pronouncing sentence?’.

    Quite simply, the courts are deemed to be morally superior to the criminal. Otherwise there would be no point to their existence.

    In this case the judge – being morally superior – was thinking about the criminal’s family, even if the criminal wasn’t. In the judge’s view, it would be devastating for the children of this family to have their father automatically deported at the end of his sentence. Therefore he decided on a sentence that would not include automatic deportation. That doesn’t mean the guy won’t be deported. Far from it. It just means he won’t be automatically deported, and that his family (UK citizens) will again be considered in any decision to deport him after his sentence.

    Also, Please bear in mind that it’s not the judge’s fault that this guy’s family happen to be UK citizens as a result of this guy’s misdeeds. The fact is that, at present – and notwithstanding the fact that their status may change – they ARE UK citizens. Judges deal with facts. There’s nothing the judge can do about that FACT other than respect it. After all – he’s got to uphold the law…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: