JUMAA KATER SALEH'S SHOCKING CASE IN LEICESTER: SEX OFFENDER AVOIDING DEPORTATION AND COSTING TAXPAYERS MILLIONS
In a case that has sparked widespread controversy and raised serious questions about the UK’s immigration and justice systems, Jumaa Kater Saleh, a convicted sex offender residing in Leicester, has become the focus of intense scrutiny.Saleh, who arrived in Britain in 2004 under clandestine circumstances, has been linked to a series of legal battles, costs to taxpayers, and a controversial decision to allow him to remain in the country despite his criminal history.
Saleh, then aged 24, was convicted in 2008 for his involvement in a predatory gang that targeted and sexually abused a 13-year-old girl.
The crime took place in Kent in 2007, where he, along with four other men, lured vulnerable young girls—some as young as 13 and 14—into a house for sexual activity.
The court heard that the victims were clearly disturbed and vulnerable, and the defendants, including Saleh, had deliberately targeted them.
Judge Martin Joy sentenced Saleh to four years in a young offenders’ institution, emphasizing that his conduct had made the country less safe.
Despite his criminal conviction, Saleh’s case took a complex turn when immigration authorities decided not to deport him immediately.
Under UK border laws, he was subject to automatic deportation, but an immigration tribunal in 2011 ruled that deporting him to Sudan would breach his human rights, as he faced persecution due to his membership in the Zaghawa tribe.
Saleh claimed that his tribe had been persecuted by government forces and Arab militia, which was accepted as a reason to grant him indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
This decision was based on the European Convention on Human Rights, which prevents deportation if it would result in inhumane or degrading treatment.
However, recent revelations have cast doubt on the validity of this ruling.
An expert hired by Saleh’s legal team, Peter Verney, a Sudanese affairs specialist, expressed significant doubts about the case’s foundation, particularly regarding Saleh’s claim of persecution.
The Home Office has responded by stating it is “looking at all options including appealing” and expressed disappointment with the court’s decision to uphold Saleh’s right to remain.
Adding to the controversy, Saleh has been involved in multiple legal proceedings, with at least nine judges presiding over cases related to him.
These cases have included appeals, detention disputes, and compensation claims.
The total costs incurred by the taxpayer in Saleh’s case are staggering, with estimates exceeding £350,000.
This figure encompasses over £100,000 for trial costs, £20,000 for asylum support, and more than £200,000 spent on detention—initially in prison and later in immigration detention centers.
The criminal trial alone required interpreters costing approximately £25,000.
Saleh’s criminal activities also include his involvement in a gang that targeted young girls.
His conviction in 2008 was based on evidence that he and his accomplices had lured three girls, aged 13 and 14, to a house in Kent for sexual purposes.
The judge at Maidstone Crown Court, Judge Martin Joy, condemned Saleh’s actions, stating, “No doubt, you came to this country because you regarded it as a safe country.
However, by your conduct, this country becomes less safe.” Despite his criminal record, Saleh was allowed to stay in the UK under the premise that deportation would violate his human rights due to the threat of persecution faced by his tribe.
This decision was challenged when Saleh sought compensation for what he claimed was unlawful detention after his prison sentence ended.
He argued that his continued detention was unnecessary and unlawful, but the High Court ultimately rejected his claim.
Deputy High Court Judge Philip Mott QC ruled that Saleh had not been unlawfully detained and that his case failed on all grounds, citing the substantial risk he posed to public safety.
The case has ignited political outrage, with critics arguing that individuals like Saleh should be deported regardless of their tribal affiliations or human rights considerations.
Tory MP Peter Bone voiced his disapproval, stating, “I take the very simple view that if someone comes to this country and then breaks the law then he should be sent back to where he comes from.
Any arguments about his human rights disappear when he has violated, violently, the rights of a young girl.” Saleh’s case continues to be a contentious issue, highlighting the complexities and conflicts between immigration laws, human rights protections, and public safety concerns.
As the debate rages on, the Leicester community and the wider public remain divided over how best to handle cases involving convicted offenders who seek to remain in the UK under the guise of human rights protections.
