An HIV positive Zimbabwean man, was saved from deportation in the United Kingdom after the supreme court ruled that, deporting him would be a violation of his human rights.
The man in question was set to be deported by the UK Home Office because of his lengthy criminal record.
The Supreme court ruled that sending the 33 year old man who has been identified as AM, to Zimbabwe would be denying him access to life saving treatment.
He is currently on anti-retroviral medication, Eviplera, which is not available in Zimbabwe.
The case was referred back to the lower courts for reconsideration.
The Zimbabwean born AM, came to the UK in 2000 and was granted indefinite leave by the Home Office, to remain in 2004 together with his mother.
His rap sheet over the years consisted of battery, assault, receiving stolen property twice and possession of a dangerous weapon in public. He was found guilty of all offenses.
The Home Office attempted to deport him back in 2006, but he got married and had a son.
He was convicted of more serious offences 3 years later, including illegal possession of a firearm and possession of heroine with intent to supply.
He was given a 9 year prison sentence.
Then his lawyers challenged the deportation order by the Home Office, in 2012, saying he had been diagnosed with HIV in 2003 but he had not become seriously ill until later.
His first anti-retroviral drug caused severe side effects and he had to switch to Eviplera, which increased his blood count, thus leading to a significant recovery.
The presiding judge Lord Wilson said in his opening judgement
“This appeal requires the court again to consider one of the most controversial questions which the law of human rights can generate.
It relates to the ability of the UK to deport a foreign citizen who, while lawfully resident here, has committed a string of serious crimes.
Said Lord Wilson in his closing judgment remarks
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel:“We therefore allow the appeal and remit the appellant’s proposed claim under article 3 for consideration by an immigration tribunal, which will no doubt seek to conduct a full inquiry into (among other things) the adequacy of the medical treatment likely to be available to the appellant in Zimbabwe.”
