Martin Daubney in SHOCK after human rights lawyer says convicted paedophile should not be deported 'because of his children'

First-tier immigration judge Jetsun Lebasci granted the appeal in August last year, ruling that deportation would be "unduly harsh" for the offender's two children.

Speaking about this on GB News, Human Rights lawyer Shoaib Khan said: "Firstly, the thing is, I mean, I think, it does become common to be second-guessing judges decisions or jury decisions.

"If they acquit someone, we're not happy. If they convict someone, we're not happy. So I think generally just from a rule of law point of view we need some respect for the judiciary and our law.

"I mean, I think that is becoming quite common now. And I think that's something that we need to resist generally.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS:

• 'Cast-iron guarantee!' Farage confirms Remembrance parade's return after event axed over 'spurious' insurance issue
• Former transport minister blasts Labour for 'hammering' people with pay-per-mile
• 'I study institutions for a living - this is the reason two-tier justice has infiltrated UK and no one is safe'

"I think we need to start trusting our juries and judges a bit more but generally about this case as well. Obviously, we're talking about this paedophile who was convicted of sex offences. But the point is he has children.

"That's the thing, I don't think there's so much about his human rights or about what his future would be, but it's more about his children in the UK."

Martin Daubney responded: "What about the parents of the children he abused? They also had children. Their human rights don't seem to matter.

"This is, quite simply, once again the law finding in favour of a convicted paedophile. He was born in India. He belongs in India."

The Home Office has since appealed against this decision, with the case now pending further review.

The upper immigration and asylum tribunal has raised serious concerns about the handling of the initial case.

Judges Melissa Canavan and Matthew Hoffman criticised the reliance on a report by independent social worker Laurence Chester, which they said contained "startling omissions".

The report failed to consider crucial documents from family court proceedings, which had imposed restrictions on HS's contact with his children.

Despite family court judges preventing HS from having "direct unsupervised contact" with his children, the social worker's report concluded that deportation would be too harsh on them.

HS currently has only weekly video calls with his children, according to legal papers.

The case has reignited debate about the UK's relationship with the ECHR, with some politicians calling for Britain to leave the convention.