A Paedophile who repeatedly raped a seven-year-old boy is being stripped of his British citizenship and deported back to India in the first landmark case of its kind.
The man, who can only be identified as RSD, came to the UK from India in 1997 and was granted British citizenship six years later. However in
The vile animal was sentenced to 23 years in prison for grooming and raping the boy between 2003 and 2010 and was ordered to sign the sexual offenders’ register for life, but now the British government has stepped in and revoked his citizenship on the grounds that he lied about the fact he was sexually abusing a child when he applied to be a UK citizen.
The man won his appeal against the decision, however, had no luck because in what is believed to have been the first case of its kind, a judge stepped in and ruled in favour of the Government, stripping the creature of his British passport.
Child abuse lawyers praised the judges ruling.
“This decision is to be welcomed as a statement of the seriousness with which grooming is viewed by the courts. Any court decision which highlights and reinforces the penalties for this kind of will help to send out the message that perpetrators will face serious consequences.”
Richard Scorer, specialist abuse lawyer at law firm Slater & Gordon
Former Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who oversaw the case before
“Given the fact that you began your sexual offences in 2003, prior to lodging your naturalisation application, and continued to do so many years after you were granted British citizenship, you were clearly not of good character. It was only because you concealed your sexual assaults that led to your application succeeding.”
Amber Rudd, Former Home Secretary
Judge Pitt, sitting in the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, said: “It is my conclusion that the appellant obtained naturalisation in 2004 by deliberately concealing material facts.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Any British Citizen may be deprived of his or her citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it would be conducive to the public good. It is a power used for extreme and exceptional cases.
“Deprivation on conducive grounds can be used where individuals pose a threat to national