User:BrianneFennescey

From ZhangLabWiki
Revision as of 14:17, 14 March 2025 by BrianneFennescey (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A Pakistani man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman in 2017 was allowed to stay in Britain after claiming he was gay.<br><br>The [https://km88.luxe/ sex người lớn] offender had been living in the UK illegally for 11 years but was granted refugee status after arguing he was homosexual and would face persecution in his home country.<br><br>The unnamed 53-year-old made his bid for asylum and insisted he was gay only a month after he was arrested for gropin...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A Pakistani man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman in 2017 was allowed to stay in Britain after claiming he was gay.

The sex người lớn offender had been living in the UK illegally for 11 years but was granted refugee status after arguing he was homosexual and would face persecution in his home country.

The unnamed 53-year-old made his bid for asylum and insisted he was gay only a month after he was arrested for groping a woman - a crime he was convicted of later the same year.

However, he was allowed to stay in the UK by an asylum court despite there being a lack of evidence that he was homosexual, official judgements show.

The Home Office 'did not accept he was living in the UK as a gay man' because of his flimsy evidence, it was heard.

But due to a legal blunder, his testimony went unchallenged and the man was granted permission to stay in April 2024.

However, the case will now be heard afresh after the Home Office successfully appealed the decision.

The Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal heard the Pakistani - only named as 'MR' - came to the UK in 2006.




A Pakistani man who was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman in 2017 while in Britain was allowed to stay in the country after claiming he was gay and could not return to his home nation due to fear of persecution (stock photo)

He was granted entry as a student and had leave to remain status until December 2006 but overstayed his visa, the tribunal heard. 

He applied for leave to remain on human rights grounds in 2012 but the Home Office rejected it that year.

In May 2017, he was arrested by police and in the same year he was convicted for sexually assaulting a woman by touching.

In June of 2017, he claimed asylum - asserting a 'fear of persecution' in his home country if he were to be deported.

It was heard that MR had pleaded guilty to sex assault at a court but when his asylum bid was underway he denied the offence and said he is gay.

In January 2023 then home secretary Suella Braverman refused him leave to remain.

'The Secretary of State [Braverman] did not accept that the appellant was living in the United Kingdom as a gay man', an asylum court judgement said.

Braverman said there was 'no evidence of a substantial relationship being in place' despite MR claiming he was in a gay relationship.




In January 2023 then home secretary Suella Braverman refused him leave to remain as she said there 'was 'no evidence of a substantial relationship being in place'

MR said he has been with a man only named as 'Mr K' since 2019 and appealed.

It was heard letters from Mr K and another of MR's witnesses do not mention his stated sexuality and added 'little weight' to his claim.

He said he was 'reliant' on Mr K but there was no evidence they lived together, no shared bills, and no other documentary evidence which supported their relationship.

He was also 'inconsistent' as to when he realised he was gay.

An appeal hearing was heard in April last year, however first-tier tribunal judge Anthony Cartin was 'surprised' when the Home Office's representative did not challenge MR's testimony.

Judge Cartin wrote in his judgement: 'At the end of cross-examination, I raised with the presenting officer [the Home Office representative] that she had omitted to challenge the assertions of the appellant that he was gay and that he was in a relationship with a man in the UK.

'She indicated that she had asked all the questions she wished to about the claim. I pointed out that it was my understanding that [the Secretary of State] did not accept the truth of the claim he made.

'This was the basis for their rejection of it as I understood matters.




The man - only named as 'MR' - came to the UK in 2006, but overstayed his visa. He applied for leave to remain on human rights grounds in 2012 but the Home Office rejected it that year

'If this was [the Secretary of State's] position, then I took the view that fairness dictated that their case should be put to the appellant. He must be given an opportunity to respond to that position.

'I made clear that it there was no challenge on these matters, I would make a note to this effect and was likely to allow the appeal.

'I was asked to rise so that the presenting officer could take further instructions.

'This was somewhat surprising as the questions of challenge did not strike me as needing to be numerous or complex, but it was necessary that the Home Office position should be put to the witness, and he should be challenged on assertions made which were not accepted.

'I rose for around 10 minutes. Upon resuming, [the Home Office representative] remained steadfast in her position.

'Nowhere in the cross-examination was there any suggestion that this claim was a fabrication.

'In fact, the questions asked gave tacit acceptance of the claim to be in a relationship with and living with another man. As I made clear during the hearing, in these circumstances, there is consequently unchallenged evidence that the appellant is gay and in a relationship with a man.'

Judge Cartin ruled that due to the lack of challenge, he did not need to hear from the Mr K and MR's other witness, found that MR was gay, and allowed his appeal to stay in the UK.




The Home Office 'did not accept he was living in the UK as a gay man' because of his flimsy evidence, it was heard. But due to a legal blunder, his testimony went unchallenged and the man was allowed to stay in April 2024

Judge Cartin said had his sexuality been challenged he could have considered the fact that he was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman.

Since, the Home Office has appealed Judge Cartin's decision and the Upper Tribunal has found that he erred in law.

Upper Tribunal Judge Declan O'Callaghan said the Home Office were deprived of the chance of questioning MR's two witnesses, who they believed would not provide convincing arguments that MR was gay.

As a result, MR's sexuality was not properly considered 'in the round'.

Judge O'Callaghan said: 'I consider, on the facts arising, that it was wrong in principle for the Judge to conclude that he was required to find the appellant credible as to core elements of his case and so deny the Secretary of State the opportunity to cross-examine the appellant's two supporting witnesses as to credit.

'I conclude that the failings identified are such that it was not reasonably and lawfully open to the Judge to adopt this course on the particular facts arising.

'Consequent to the unlawful direction, the Judge did not lawfully consider the evidence before him in the round.

'His reasoning is fatally infected by the procedurally unfair approach adopted.

'The Judge's reasoning is adversely impacted by procedural unfairness, and the only proper course is to set aside the decision in its entirety..'

A new hearing will take place at a later date.


The Home Office