African paedophile cannot be deported...

10. The Secretary of State’s grounds are primarily concerned with the quality of the ISW report, and the rationality or otherwise of weight being attached to that evidence in the way that it was. The ISW interviewed the Respondent, who denies his crimes. She then interviewed his wife, who also denies that he could have committed the crimes for which he was convicted. She did not speak herself to any of the children in the house, who notably included the Respondent’s stepdaughter, the victim of his most serious offences. It is therefore difficult to see how her assessment of these children’s best interests was complete. I accept that these criticisms are well made.
11. I am nevertheless satisfied that the decision contains a more obvious error in approach. The Tribunal found, in its analysis on s72, that this man continues to pose a risk to the community, in particular children. The decision then proceeds to consider whether his deportation would be ‘unduly harsh’ for his children, without once considering the risk that he might pose to them. There is no mention of the welfare of the Respondent’s stepdaughter, now a 15 year old living in the family home. She is an integral part of the family unit that the Respondent wishes to rejoin. It was in my view incumbent on the Tribunal to stand back and assess how his presence in the family home might impact upon all of these relationships. It is an obvious point. A conclusion that children will benefit from the presence of their father as they grow up is – absent direct risk – generally uncontroversial. The same cannot be automatically said where those children also have a relationship with their sister, and where their sister might well be negatively affected by his return. Neither the ISW or the Tribunal consider how this child, a victim of assault by penetration, might react to that outcome. It seems to me that this should have been the starting point for the enquiry.