Asylum farce as man wins court fight to stay in Britain on human rights grounds despite committing 19 crimes since arriving

The 24-year-old arrived in Britain in 2016 and has committed offences including robbery, burglary, possessing an offensive weapon and drug offences.

He also served time in prison after assaulting an emergency worker.

The Egyptian argued that he was at risk in Egypt as his father was a banned Muslim Brotherhood extremist.

The court ruled that his deportation would violate the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR].

Despite his crimes, the man has not been named to preserve the privacy of his mental health issues.

The ECHR has faced severe criticism from Eurosceptic politicians, who claim it hinders Britain on issues of sovereignty, national security, and immigration control.

Speaking on the case, Tory Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told The Sun: "This dangerous repeat criminal should be kicked out.

"He is attacking and robbing British citizens and has no place in this country.

"Why do judges say his rights are more important than protecting the British public?

"We must end the ECHR which enables this madness and immediately deport all foreign criminals."

At the Conservative Party Conference last month, the Tories officially adopted the policy of committing to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

This decision was based on a review by the Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, who concluded that remaining in the Convention placed "significant constraints" on a future Conservative Government's ability to implement key policies.

Reform UK has long stated that leaving the ECHR is a core and explicit policy commitment, which they have made a priority from day one if they were in power.

The ECHR is frequently blamed for preventing the Government from deporting illegal migrants and foreign criminals.

Critics point to specific judgments, such as those concerning Article 8, the right to private and family life, which they argue are used to block removals, thereby hindering effective border control and immigration policy.

Supporters for the convention argue that legislation provides a safety net for individuals, guaranteeing fundamental freedoms like the right to a fair trial and protection from torture.

They support its role in reinforcing the UK's commitment to the rule of law and claim it strengthens Britain's international standing.