Indian migrant jailed for stealing vulnerable grandmother’s gold chain at bus stop can remain in the UK as judge says it would be ‘unduly harsh’
An Indian national, identified only as AB, has won an appeal against deportation from the UK despite being jailed for robberies targeting two vulnerable women, including a grandmother at a bus stop. An Upper Tribunal judge ruled that removing him would be “unduly harsh” for his British wife and their two children, giving priority to the family’s circumstances despite recognising a strong public interest in deporting serious offenders.
AB, 30, received concurrent five-year prison sentences for the 2019 robberies, after a previous suspended sentence for assault. The tribunal heard that his wife has inflammatory arthritis and mental health difficulties, and that both families had made alleged honour-based threats after their marriage and his conversion to Islam; the judge concluded it would be unsafe for the family to relocate to India. AB came to Britain as a child, later overstayed a visa, married in 2017 and appealed the deportation order on human-rights grounds.
In short
- Tribunal blocks deportation of jailed robbery offender.
- Judge cites wife’s health and family threats.
- Decision followed a human-rights appeal.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The strongest case for allowing AB to remain is that deportation would impose severe consequences on his British wife and children, who were not responsible for his crimes. The tribunal heard that his wife has significant health and mental-health difficulties and that threats from relatives made relocation to India unsafe; on this view, protecting family life and avoiding disproportionate harm to them can outweigh the public interest in deporting him.
The case against
The strongest case for deportation is that AB committed serious robberies against vulnerable women and had a prior conviction, so the public has a strong interest in removing him and reducing the risk of further harm. His wife’s and children’s circumstances deserve compassion, but this view holds that family hardship does not necessarily outweigh the consequences of serious offending, particularly where deportation decisions must maintain confidence in the law.
Explained simply
UK deportation cases can involve weighing the public interest in removing a foreign national who has committed serious crimes against the effects on their close family. Human-rights protections may be relevant when a person has a British spouse or children, particularly if separation or relocation would cause serious hardship.
AB came to the UK as a child and later married a British woman; they have two children. The tribunal also heard evidence about his wife’s health and alleged threats to the family in India, factors that can affect whether moving there is considered safe or reasonable.
The case concerns how immigration rules apply when a person’s criminal convictions and family circumstances point in different directions. Such decisions are made by a tribunal assessing the evidence and the law in the individual case.