He arrived in the UK aged 12, but for the last 14 years Hall has been under threat of being sent back to Barbados – a country he doesn’t remember and where he has no surviving relatives.

All this time he has been kept on a deportation list, which means he cannot work, rent somewhere to live, receive benefits or do anything that would allow him to start rebuilding his life. Instead, he remains on the edge of destitution, reliant on the kindness of family and friends to survive.

In 2001 he was convicted of a serious crime – conspiracy to rob and having a firearm with intent; he spent eight years in prison. He had been planning with friends to hold up a security van taking money to a bank; he was carrying a toy gun, but there was also a real gun in the car. Police stopped them before a crime was committed.

The principle of rehabilitation suggests that Hall, having served his sentence, should then have been allowed to restart his life, as his co-defendants did.

Every fortnight Hall must attend an appointment at a Home Office reporting centre, carrying a document printed with his mugshot above a letter that warns him he is liable to be detained “pending a decision to deport you/because a decision has been made to deport you”. The journey there takes him the best part of two hours, and involves a few stops on the overground, a short bus ride, then six stops on the underground and another bus ride, followed by a queue at the reporting centre, a brief checking of documents and the reverse trip home. By now, he estimates that he has performed this time-consuming ritual more than 350 times.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Not a citizen, committed violent crime. It's pretty simple, it's in the article.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    Well, maybe if he had been deported right after the crime (which wasn't violent, it was a planned robbery). That's the strongest argument you could make, to not punish him here but instead deport him. But he wasn't, he served his time in the country he committed the crime (pretty standard I think) so now there is no reason to deport him.

    What would it help to deport him? Wouldn't help him, he doesn't have any family where he was born. Wouldn't help the state, or anybody in the UK.

    The current state of things is also ridiculous. He can't work, he has to waste government money and time checking in every two weeks. Travel which he has to pay out of pocket even though he has no job, god forbid he can't pay one day and is arrested. For 14 years this waste of time has happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    which wasn't violent

    He was planning to threaten with a gun (real or fake) which is considered a violent crime. Armed robbery was his intention.

    The fact he was arrested before he managed to threaten anyone is a moot point.

    He could’ve just accepted being deported and moved on with his life. He chose limbo and it seems that is all but guaranteed to push him into further crime as there’s no other way to make a living.

    Deporting him solves the problem for the UK as he ceases to be their problem. Not deporting him at the end of his incarceration is the strange part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

    I will preface this with :

    • ACAB
    • The current legal system is corrupt in it's uneven application
    • legality and ethics/morals are subjective and not always the same thing.

    So know that im not defending the legal system here, just stating that weak/innacurate arguments weaken whatever position you try to build upon them.


    Planning a violent crime, even with intent, isn't considered a violent crime in and of itself, as it involves no violence.

    Intent and action are different things, which is why there are separate names and crimes.

    The argument that they deserve the same punishment is interesting though and (I think) sometimes valid.

    If deportation is a named consequence of the crime(either part of the sentence or a consequence of having a criminal record of that nature) then they should have been deported immediately.

    If it is not, then they have paid for their crime and tagging consequences on after the fact is vigilante behaviour.

    To be clear, im not arguing against vigilante justice here, just pointing out that it would be extra-judicial, making whoever preformed that action a criminal as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago (3 children)

    https://www.ukimmigration.law/uk-deportation-lawyers/crimes-that-lead-to-deportation/

    Deportation turns mainly on sentence length. A non-British, non-Irish citizen convicted in the UK and sentenced to at least 12 months faces automatic deportation unless an exception applies, and for convictions on or after 22 March 2026 that includes a suspended sentence of 12 months or more. Shorter sentences can still lead to deportation for serious harm or persistent offending, and from four years only very compelling circumstances outweigh the public interest.

    UK was a lot softer back then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (2 children)

    Interesting, seems they did in fact put him on a plane, he came back because barbados refused him entry (due to him being a long time resident of the UK)

    It also sounds like he should already be a de-facto citizen but isn't because of long term governmental incompetence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Or it's because he ruined his own chances of being a citizen. Can't blame the gov for everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    Can’t blame the gov for everything.

    True, but in the case of a well publicised and documented failure of multiple generations of government, a case in which they have already admitted culpability and are (very slowly) working to redress, i don't need to blame them, blame is firmly established.

    Feel free to look it up, it's in the article.

    The logic is simple to follow, i'll lay it out in steps

    • If he was already a citizen , the issue of deportation wouldn't exist.
    • By the sounds of it, it seems he should have already been a citizen long before this happened.
    • The reason for him not already being a citizen is governmental incompetence (or malice, i suppose)

    All of that is assuming, of course, that he is one of the people affected by said government fuckup, which again, it seems like he is.

    Is he a nice person? no idea

    Does he deserve the rules to be applied evenly to him? absolutely.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (6 children)

    Critical reading doesn't seem your strong point buddy. I'm reading an entirely different story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    Entirely different? Or you refuse to admit that conspiracy yo commit violent crime is less dangerous than actually being violent?

    Buddy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (2 children)

    By definition it's less dangerous.

    One involves the violence, one is the planning of the violence (with no actual violence having happened).

    It implies multiple parties and the intent to commit the violence in the future, but the violence hasn't happened yet.

    If they were the same ting there wouldn't be a separate term and or crime.

    It sounds like you want to argue that the planning (with intent) should carry the same sentence and repercussions, which is an entirely valid argument, have at it.

    Pretending that planning and execution are the same exact level of danger serves only to undermine what might otherwise be a well reasoned argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago

    I'm not advocating for minority report. The other user said an entirely different story, which it isn't. I said violent when it doesn't even matter in this instance.

    Only a horrible kind of person plans to commit violence, and I said they should've been deported earlier on.

  • source
  • parent