• A friendly and supportive community, register today. Our forums use a separate account system.

UK Albanian drug offender who grew 200 cannabis plants avoids deportation under ECHR

A man who was jailed for growing over 200 cannabis plants has avoided being deported after it was ruled his removal would be "harsh" on his partner.

Armando Iberhasaj was handed a four-month prison sentence after being discovered at a property in Springfield Crescent, Bolsover, on October 15, 2019.

Iberhasaj claimed his deportation would breach his rights to a family life with his partner under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

He claimed this outweighed his criminal threat to Britain, given that he had been jailed for less than a year, the current threshold above which foreign offenders face automatic deportation.

Iberhasaj was found at the Derbyshire property alongside another male, who said they had only been at the property for a matter of days.

They claimed they were being paid to water and feed the crops, which were already in various stages of growth.

Tom Heath, prosecuting, told Derby Crown Court that Iberhasaj answered "no comment" to initial questions posed by police officers, but later pleaded guilty.

While upper immigration tribunal judge Sarah Pinder admitted that growing cannabis "certainly" could cause "serious societal harm", she added the four-month sentence handed to Iberhasaj was "indicative" that his conviction "in the specific circumstances of the offending, did not cause 'serious harm".

\u200bArmando Iberhasaj

Judge Pinder remarked: "Expecting [Iberhasaj’s] partner to relocate with [him] to Albania, would, I accept, cause her unjustifiably harsh consequences.

"This is because she has no ties or links to Albania other than through [Iberhasaj] and she has never visited Albania nor lived there herself.“

"She gave evidence, which I accept, that she is committed to her employment and to being independent, enjoying her career and earning her salary.

"I also accept her evidence that she has recently been providing daily support to her sister and her mother, who each have health and physical needs with her sister in particular being investigated for a possible cancer diagnosis."

Springfield Crescent, Bolsover

Home Office lawyers argued Iberhasaj had started his relationship with his partner at a time when he had no legal right to be in the UK.

The Home Office had also made clear it intended to deport him, a fact that she had been made aware of from the beginning by Iberhasaj.

Lawyers suggested that while it was "inconvenient" for his partner to move to Albania because of the language issues, Iberhasaj had been able to adapt to the UK when not speaking English

They stressed the initial offence "caused serious harm" because the trade in illicit drugs had "a severe and negative impact on society, adding: "It is a process causing misery and sometimes death to the many thousands of people who are unfortunate enough to become addicted to them. Drug addiction affects not only on the drug users themselves, but also their families."

Home Office

The decision regarding to Iberhasaj and Article 8 comes as ministers are pushing to change the way the laws apply in migration cases.

Article 8 has been used alongside Article 3, the protection against inhuman or degrading treatment, to prevent people with no right to be in the UK being sent back to their home countries.

Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy told ministers from other ECHR countries: "The definition of ‘family life' can’t be stretched to prevent the removal of people with no right to remain in the country. The threshold of 'inhuman and degrading treatment' must be constrained to the most serious issues.

"States must be able to take proportionate decisions on the removal of foreign criminals, so that we renew the convention’s democratic foundation."

\u200bDavid Lammy

Both Reform UK and the Conservatives have pledged to take the UK out of the ECHR should either win the next General Election.

Tory Leader Kemi Badenoch said: "I have not come to this decision lightly, but it is clear that it is necessary to protect our borders, our veterans, and our citizens.

"I have always been clear that we should leave the ECHR, if necessary, but unlike other parties we have done the serious work to develop a plan to do so, backed by legal advice from a distinguished King's Counsel."

A Reform UK spokesman dismissed these plans, adding: "The Conservatives had 14 years in government to leave the ECHR. Since then, it's taken them 14 months to even decide what their policy is...the Conservative Party is finished."

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter

Continue reading...
 
If you're a person who reads all that crap above, then I challenge you to read all my crap too :)

First of all, "leaving ECHR as a silver bullet" is a fallacy. There are European countries fully aligned with ECHR and some of these countries remove as much or even more individuals from the country than the UK. While the ECHR does provide a legal mechanism for individuals to challenge the state, it is RARELY IF EVER the primary reason for border control difficulties. The "fallacy" lies in promising that leaving the ECHR would fix the system, while ignoring the diplomatic, constitutional, and operational costs that would follow.

Take a good look at what we ourselves would lose, and think just for 2 seconds, why would want the trump-adjacent authoritans destroy these rights for us? A pattern is very clear. I am sorry to say but anyone who believes this would be a good trade for 65 million citizens just so we can send away 1-2 thousand drug dealers, is not very bright.

Leaving the ECHR is a long-ongoing consistent propaganda pushed by the russia-adjacent players, the "new" altright conservatives and of course fartrage and his minitrump/russia party.

Leaving it means literally nothing else than "we ALL want to be worth less forever, including our children, just so we can kick 2 guys in the arse".
  • Loss of Protection Against Invasive Surveillance
    • Example: You would lose the legal grounds used in the Big Brother Watch case, which forced the UK to reform its "bulk interception" laws to prevent the government from indiscriminately spying on your private emails and phone data without sufficient cause.
  • Difficulty Holding the Police Accountable for Investigation Failures
    • Example: You might find it harder to sue for negligence if the police fail to investigate a serious crime, similar to the John Worboys case where victims used ECHR rights to prove the police breached their duty to protect citizens from "inhuman or degrading treatment" by failing to catch a serial attacker.
  • Loss of Protection for Personal Data and Privacy
    • Example: The government could potentially revert to keeping your DNA, fingerprints, and facial biometrics on a permanent database even if you were never convicted of a crime—a practice the ECHR ruled unlawful in the S and Marper case.
  • Reduced Freedom of Expression and Journalistic Protection
    • Example: Journalists would lose the strong "Article 10" protections that currently prevent the government or corporations from forcing them to reveal their confidential sources, as seen in the Financial Times v UK ruling.
  • Difficulty Challenging Discriminatory Employment Policies
    • Example: You would lose the precedent that protects your right to express religious or personal beliefs at work, such as the Eweida v UK case which ensured a British Airways employee could wear a cross necklace despite a corporate ban.
  • Loss of Safeguards Against Arbitrary Detention
    • Example: Vulnerable people or those with mental health issues could be detained "for their own safety" without the strict legal reviews currently required by the HL v UK (Bournewood) ruling, which established that such detention must have clear procedural safeguards.
  • Weakened Protection Against State-Sanctioned Violence or Neglect
    • Example: Families of victims in cases of state neglect (such as deaths in custody or failures in social services) would lose the "Article 2" (Right to Life) requirement that the government conduct a fully independent and transparent public inquiry into the death.
  • Threat to the Stability of Northern Ireland
    • Example: A citizen in Northern Ireland would face the legal uncertainty of a breached Good Friday Agreement, which explicitly requires the ECHR to be part of Northern Irish law to protect the rights of all communities.
  • Loss of "Final Recourse" Beyond the UK Supreme Court
    • Example: If the UK Parliament passed a law that stripped you of a specific right, you would have no higher "referee" to appeal to. Currently, the European Court of Human Rights can rule that a UK law is incompatible with fundamental rights, forcing the government to reconsider.
Here is a simple list of the fundamental rights and freedoms it guarantees:

Core Rights (The Articles)​

  • Article 2: Right to life – The state cannot kill you and must protect your life.
  • Article 3: Freedom from torture – Includes protection against inhuman or degrading treatment.
  • Article 4: Freedom from slavery – Prohibition of forced labor and human trafficking.
  • Article 5: Right to liberty and security – You cannot be arrested or detained without a legal reason.
  • Article 6: Right to a fair trial – Includes the right to a public hearing and the presumption of innocence.
  • Article 7: No punishment without law – You cannot be charged for something that wasn't a crime when you did it.
  • Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life – Protects your privacy, home life, and personal data.
  • Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion – The right to believe what you want and practice your faith.
  • Article 10: Freedom of expression – The right to hold opinions and receive/share information.
  • Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association – The right to protest peacefully and join groups (like trade unions).
  • Article 12: Right to marry – The right to marry and start a family.
  • Article 13: Right to an effective remedy – If your rights are violated, you must have a way to seek justice in court.
  • Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination – These rights must be enjoyed by everyone regardless of race, sex, religion, etc.

Additional Rights (Key Protocols)​

These are rights added over time that the UK has also agreed to:
  • Protection of property: The right to peacefully enjoy your own possessions and land.
  • Right to education: The state cannot deny you access to an education.
  • Right to free elections: The state must hold secret ballots at reasonable intervals.
  • Abolition of the death penalty: A total ban on capital punishment in all circumstances.
 
Why the fuck is there a GBNews account on this forum?

Hopefully, the ignore button actually works because I really don't want to see this shit here, or anywhere for that matter.
 
There's news feeds from BBC, ITV, Sky and GB News here filtered for the 'cannabis' keyword. Bluntly, it's not our place to pick and choose between media sources, or selectively publish headlines.

Yes, the ignore button will work and you won't see any further posts from the automated @GB News account. Apologies for any frustration caused @LostInANewWorld.
 
Back
Top