Bisexual rapist escapes UK deportation due to safety fears in Jamaica
Published:Sunday | January 19, 2025 | 12:11 AM
A 41-year-old Jamaican man convicted of raping a sleeping woman has successfully avoided deportation from the United Kingdom after arguing that his bisexuality would put him at risk of harm in Jamaica and that he had been beaten by members of the One Order gang.
The man – who cannot be identified due to an anonymity order by the court and was referred to only as AA – was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2018 for forcing himself on a woman after a drinking and cannabis session at a party. He was released in June 2021 after serving half of his sentence and handed a deportation order.
The Home Office sought to remove AA from the United Kingdom following his release, arguing that he remained “a danger to the community” and should be sent back to Jamaica. It turned down his request for asylum on June 28, 2021. However, AA challenged the decision, and immigration tribunal judges blocked the deportation, citing fears for his safety if he were returned to Jamaica due to his sexual orientation.
Expert witness Dr Damion Blake told the tribunal that it was “more likely than not” that AA, who was taken to the United Kingdom by a relative when he was 18, would face homophobic attitudes and practices if deported.
“It is my opinion that [AA] will be at risk of stigmatisation, isolation, physical attacks, torture, and/or deadly violence because of his sexual orientation as a bisexual male. This fact is compounded by the reality that he was previously attacked by members of the One Order Gang and is likely to be targeted again if he is deported to Jamaica. At the very least, he has a high risk of experiencing physical abuse and serious bodily harm from members of the One Order Gang,” he added, noting that AA had been attacked and injured in Jamaica because of his sexuality.
“A targeted ‘hit’ is likely to be activated against him if he returns to Jamaica by members of the notorious One Order Gang because of his bisexual orientation,” Blake said. “Compounding this reality is the fact that deportees, as I note above, have a stigma and label in Jamaica; when they are returned to the island, their whereabouts are accessible. In fact, when a deportee enters or is returned to his/her community, residents know that they have been returned.”
An upper tribunal ruling by Judge Melissa Canavan revealed that at the initial hearing in 2023, Judge Mary Mulready noted that AA had suffered significant violence in Jamaica as a teenager due to his sexuality. When he was 13-14, he considered that he had been in a sexual relationship with an older man, who was later murdered. While AA did not recognise it as sexual abuse, Judge Mulready found it to be.
AA said he had been violently attacked on multiple occasions in Jamaica, “leading to multiple scars on his head and body, including from a metal bar, a machete, and attacks by dogs”. As a result, AA argued that he would face similar violent treatment if sent back to Jamaica.
Judge Mulready observed that AA had argued that at the time he committed the offence, he did not know that forcing himself on a sleeping woman who had been drinking was rape, although he was at pains to say that he now knew it was wrong. AA, who had been drinking and smoking cannabis at the party on the night of the offence, expressed shame for his actions, stating that he had written an apology to the victim and had completed a victim awareness course.
Judge Mulready did not accept that AA was unaware of the wrongfulness of his actions when he committed the offence. However, the upper tribunal noted that she acknowledged that he had gained a better understanding of issues surrounding consent and vulnerability through attending the victim awareness course. She accepted that he also recognised the life-changing impact of his offence on the victim.
But the ruling also said that while the offender had “expressed a great deal of remorse for the offence, most of his regret appeared to be for the fact that it had led to him being imprisoned. The judge also noted that the appellant had social support and positive influences in his life now, which he did not have at the time he committed the offence,” the ruling also noted.
It added: “Having considered the evidence relating to this issue as a whole, the judge considered it to be a ‘finely balanced’ decision. However, she was satisfied that there was ‘significant evidence of positive rehabilitation’, and for this reason, she concluded that the appellant had rebutted the presumption that he constituted a danger to the community.”
Judge Mulready went on to consider the country guidance in DW (Homosexual Men – Persecution – Sufficiency of Protection) Jamaica CG [2005] UKAIT 00168. She quoted the headnote in full: “Men who are perceived to be homosexual and have for this reason suffered persecution in Jamaica are likely to be at risk of persecution on return. Men who are perceived to be homosexual and have not suffered past persecution may be at risk depending on their particular circumstances. The Secretary of State conceded that, as a general rule, the authorities do not provide homosexual men with a sufficiency of protection. There are likely to be difficulties in finding safety through internal relocation, but in this respect, no general guidance is given.”
The upper court noted that Judge Mulready concluded that AA had a well-founded fear of persecution in Jamaica, and that there would not be sufficiency of protection wherever he lived in Jamaica. “In the alternative, she made clear that even if she had not found for the appellant in relation to the section 72 issue, she would have allowed the appeal on human rights grounds because there was a real risk of a breach of Article 3 ill-treatment if he were returned to Jamaica,” the upper court added.
Judge Canavan, who heard the second appeal last May, agreed with Judge Mulready that AA would likely face further harm if deported to the island due to his bisexuality and found no ruling to set the decision to block his deportation aside.
The Home Office had initially sought to invalidate AA’s claim, stating that all the evidence it found indicated that AA only had relationships with women since his arrival in the UK. However, AA revealed that he had a brief relationship with a man in 2015.
In its appeal, the Home Office submitted that even if AA had a relationship with a man in 2015 in the UK, there was no evidence to show that he would be identified as bisexual if returned to Jamaica, given his “preponderance for relationships with women”. The secretary of state further argued that the judge had failed to consider the fact that the appellant did not claim asylum until 19 years after he arrived in the UK, which indicated that the appellant did not have a genuine fear of persecution. However, the judge found that AA’s case was that he is a bisexual man, and “the fact that he might have had a series of relationships with women in the UK was not inconsistent with that claim”.
“Having found that the appellant was likely to be bisexual, the judge considered his past history, relevant country guidance, and country expert evidence to assess whether he was likely to be at risk on return. There is nothing to suggest that she did not take into account the passage of time since the appellant left Jamaica,” the upper court said.
An application to again appeal the upper court’s decision was declined in November.
Former UK Security Minister Sir John Hayes labelled the decision “an insult to every victim”.
“This man should be thrown out of the country,” he is quoted as saying in the British press.
The Home Office says it has “no apology” for pursuing the deportation of a foreign criminal.