A Nigerian man convicted of scamming women out of nearly £200,000 in an elaborate romance fraud has successfully avoided deportation from the United Kingdom after a tribunal ruled that his family’s health conditions could not be adequately treated in Nigeria. The case highlights the ongoing struggles of the UK’s immigration system, as foreign criminals are increasingly using human rights arguments to resist deportation.
Emmanuel Jack, 35, was sentenced to three years in prison in 2014 for defrauding six women he met on dating websites. Posing as a successful architect, Jack used various aliases such as John Creed, John Windsor, and Johnnie Carlo Rissi, to deceive vulnerable women into sending him large sums of money. In total, Jack scammed these women out of £186,000, using their emotional trust to manipulate them into parting with their finances.
Jack, who moved to the UK from Nigeria at the age of 10, had been living in Britain for over two decades before being caught for his crimes. In 2022, eight years after his release from prison, the UK’s Home Office moved to deport him back to Nigeria. However, Jack challenged the deportation order, arguing that it would violate his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal in London, which heard Jack’s case, ruled in his favor, deciding that deporting him would cause undue hardship to his British wife and children. The judges noted that both of Jack’s children, as well as his wife, suffer from serious medical conditions that require specialized care available only in the UK. They concluded that relocating the family to Nigeria would disrupt this care, as the country is unlikely to provide the necessary medical treatments currently available through the UK’s National Health Service (NHS).
According to court documents, Jack’s youngest child, an 18-month-old, was born prematurely and has significant developmental issues that require continuous medical supervision. His six-year-old daughter also suffers from vision impairments, further complicating her health care needs. The tribunal ruled that Nigeria could not provide the level of care that his family requires, particularly the specialized treatment that is available in the UK.
The judges also noted that Jack played a key role in caring for his children, stating that his absence would negatively impact their well-being. “We find that [Mr Jack] helps both children with their medical needs and therapies and his absence would potentially have a deleterious effect on their health,” the ruling stated. The tribunal emphasized the emotional and psychological toll that Jack’s deportation would have on his family, particularly given the close relationships between Jack and his children.
The ruling has raised concerns in some quarters, as it is part of a growing trend where foreign criminals have successfully evaded deportation by citing human rights protections. According to reports, the number of immigration appeals based on human rights claims has surged, with a backlog of over 41,000 outstanding cases. This has put pressure on the UK government to address the issue, particularly as the ruling comes amid the Labour Party’s pledge to speed up the deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals.
The Home Office had strongly opposed Jack’s deportation, arguing that his criminal actions should not be allowed to prevent him from being removed from the UK. A spokesperson for the Home Office stated, “We strongly believed this individual, with a criminal conviction of fraud, should not remain in the UK, which is why deportation efforts were clearly made, and this case was contested in court.” The spokesperson also highlighted the government’s record in removing foreign criminals, saying that 2,925 foreign criminals had been deported since the last general election, a 21% increase compared to the same period the previous year.
Jack’s legal battle began after he was convicted of fraud in 2014. Before his conviction, he had successfully applied for British citizenship, but the Home Office later revoked it due to his criminal activities. Following his release from prison, Jack married a British woman and had two children. He had been living in the UK as a legal resident until the deportation order was issued in 2022.
The case has sparked debate over the balance between protecting human rights and ensuring that criminals face consequences for their actions. Critics argue that allowing foreign criminals to avoid deportation based on family health grounds could set a dangerous precedent, while supporters of the ruling claim that the welfare of children should be prioritized.
The UK government has expressed its intention to explore ways to restrict the use of Article 8 of the ECHR in deportation cases involving foreign criminals. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is considering new measures to prevent individuals like Jack from using family health claims to evade deportation, though it is unclear when such changes will be implemented.
While the Home Office remains committed to deporting foreign criminals, the case of Emmanuel Jack highlights the challenges faced by the UK’s immigration system. As the backlog of immigration appeals continues to grow, the question of how to handle criminals who use human rights arguments to stay in the country remains a contentious issue.
For now, Jack will remain in the UK with his family, despite his past criminal convictions. The ruling raises important questions about the extent to which family rights should be considered in deportation cases, particularly when the individuals involved have committed serious crimes. As debates continue over the fairness of such rulings, the case serves as a reminder of the complex and often difficult decisions that the UK immigration system must make in balancing justice and human rights.
Jack’s case is just one example of a broader trend where criminals argue that their deportation would cause undue hardship to their families, often relying on the protections provided by the ECHR. As more cases of this nature make their way through the courts, the UK government may be forced to reconsider its approach to deportations, particularly in cases involving foreign criminals with families in the UK.
