A convicted county lines gang leader has successfully blocked his deportation from the UK to Nigeria, claiming it would infringe on his family rights and deny him necessary mental health treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The 29-year-old, whose identity is withheld by the court, was sentenced to eight years for drug trafficking—a criminal path he began as a teenager. After the Home Office sought to deport him upon his release, he argued that his removal would breach his right to a family life and leave him without access to proper psychiatric care in Nigeria. Invoking Article 3 of the ECHR, he claimed deportation would result in “inhuman and degrading” treatment, citing the lack of mental health resources in his home country.
While an immigration tribunal initially dismissed his claims, questioning the validity of his family arguments, he won his appeal when the court found that errors were made in assessing his case.
The man entered the UK from Nigeria at age 10 but overstayed his visa and remained illegally. His involvement in drug dealing began at 15, leading to a conviction in 2016 for possession with intent to supply cocaine and heroin. Despite a suspended sentence, he continued running a profitable drug network in Farnborough, working with close associates, including a 17-year-old. Court documents reveal his operation generated up to £5,000 a week, often recruiting clients through social media. His activities culminated in an eight-year sentence in 2018.
The Home Office argued for his deportation, citing his criminal record and labeling him a “danger to the public.” It rejected his assertion that deportation would harm his family life and mental health, noting his partner and child had a wide family support network and had managed during his incarceration.
However, his legal team claimed he would struggle to reintegrate in Nigeria. They argued that his half-brother, previously deported, could not assist him, and his mother testified that his Nigerian relatives, including his grandmother and aunt, had died. The lower tribunal questioned these statements, calling them “fiction” in the absence of death certificates.
Additionally, the tribunal dismissed arguments that deportation would be unduly harsh on his partner and child. It ruled that his partner had a strong family network and coped independently while he was jailed. The lower tribunal also rejected his claims about inadequate mental health care in Nigeria.
The upper tribunal ultimately determined that errors were made in the original case, including a failure to consider his long residence in the UK since age 10, resulting in the case being sent back for a new hearing before a different judge.
