Drug Dealer and Robber Uses ECHR to Dodge Deportation, Citing Mum's Mental Health

Outrage as Convicted Robber Uses Human Rights Law to Stay in UK Despite Serious Crimes

A Portuguese drug dealer and convicted robber has managed to stay in the UK after a court ruling deemed his deportation could harm his mother’s mental health. The case has reignited debates over the use of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects individuals' rights to family and private life. Many commentators have questioned, however, how the criminal acts he chose to commit may have impacted the mental health of his victims, adding further controversy to the decision.

Background of the Case

Fabio Indiai, 30, was jailed in 2021 for four years and two months for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, including cocaine, MDMA, and ketamine, with police valuing his stash at over £1,000. This was not his first brush with the law. In 2012, he served an 18-month sentence in a youth detention centre for robbery.

Despite his criminal history, Indiai successfully used Article 8 of the ECHR to avoid deportation, arguing that his removal would cause significant distress to his mother, who he claimed depends on him for daily support.

The Home Office had sought to deport Indiai following his latest convictions, but a judge ruled in his favour, agreeing that his mother’s mental health could be impacted if he were removed.

The judge’s decision highlights the tension between public safety concerns and individuals’ family rights under Article 8, especially as it applies to serious criminal offenders.

Public Concern over Article 8 ‘Loophole’

Indiai’s case is not unique. Article 8 has been invoked by numerous foreign criminals to prevent deportation, often sparking public outrage and concerns over the law’s application in serious criminal contexts.

In another controversial case, an individual identified only as ‘HS’ successfully argued that deportation would interfere with his right to a family life. ‘HS’ had a conviction for serious sexual offences against children, yet used Article 8 to avoid being sent out of the UK.

Another example is that of Ardit Binaj, an Albanian national deported for burglary, who later returned to the UK and, after being detained, argued that deportation would infringe on his Article 8 rights. Binaj was ultimately allowed to remain, despite his criminal background, again raising serious questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights.

High-Profile Cases and the Burden on Taxpayers

The European Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of Article 8 has had far-reaching consequences in high-profile cases like Othman (Abu Qatada) v United Kingdom. Abu Qatada, who faced accusations of terrorism, argued that deporting him to Jordan would violate his right to family life. The lengthy legal battle, which was ultimately successful, demonstrated the strength of Article 8’s protections in cases involving grave national security concerns.

In addition to cases involving family life, some foreign nationals have claimed religious conversions to avoid deportation. Foreign criminals have cited newfound Christian faiths as grounds to stay in the UK, arguing they would face persecution in their home countries. These claims, often involving serious offenders convicted of murder, sexual offences, and drug crimes, have raised further alarm about Article 8’s broad interpretation.

Currently, approximately 10,000 foreign criminals reside in UK prisons, making up around 12% of the total prison population. Incarcerating these individuals costs UK taxpayers an estimated £530 million annually.

The Growing Debate on Reforming Article 8

Many critics argue that while Article 8 was established to protect individuals’ fundamental rights, it has become a legal ‘loophole’ for criminals to avoid deportation. The ECHR’s application in cases involving serious offences has sparked discussions on potential reforms to balance individual rights with the UK’s public safety needs.

This latest case involving Fabio Indiai underscores the growing friction between the intended purpose of Article 8 and its use in criminal cases. For some, it raises critical questions about whether human rights protections should extend so far as to allow convicted criminals to remain in the country.

The Briefing Room

The Briefing Room offers our insights on this story and many others. With firsthand experience in both the emergency services and armed forces, we bring real-world knowledge to our reporting. As a reader-supported publication, we invite you to become a paid subscriber to help us continue our work—and to gain access to what we really think.

Opening Thoughts

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was established with the noble intention of safeguarding our fundamental freedoms and rights. However, we’re now seeing an unintended consequence: Article 8, which protects the right to family and private life, is increasingly perceived as a tool for serious offenders to avoid deportation. This exploitation raises a critical question: at what point does the protection of individual rights outweigh the collective safety of the community?