Mick Hartley

Earlier this year we had the case of Abdul Ezedi, the Afghan who was given asylum here despite being a convicted sex offender, on the grounds that he was now a happy Christian convert and would never do anything nasty ever again. He went on to throw corrosive chemical over a woman and child in Clapham – and, after his death, was of course buried as a Muslim. It prompted an angry response from an anonymous Home Office civil servant on "our broken asylum system", and a dysfunctional culture where things like "world hijab day" are celebrated, and staff are too intimidated to speak out.

And here we go again:

An Afghan sex offender avoided deportation after lawyers claimed his treatment of women would put him at risk of “mob violence” in his home country.

The 31-year-old asylum seeker was jailed for 12 weeks for “outraging public decency and exposure” and was placed on the sex offenders’ register for seven years.

However, the Afghan was awarded refugee status and avoided deportation after claiming it was a breach of his human rights to deny him asylum in the UK.

Doctors told the immigration tribunal that the Afghan man, referred to only as DH, continued to act “inappropriately” towards women despite his conviction.

An immigration tribunal judge agreed with lawyers that his “risky behaviours” would expose him to “ill treatment” and even “mob violence” if he returned to Afghanistan.

Christopher Hanson, the tribunal judge, therefore ruled that the man should be granted refugee status, allowing him to remain in the UK.

As we know, in Afghanistan inappropriate behaviour towards women is practically unheard of. They come down very hard on offenders.

Or, more seriously, it's surely likely that the offender views women as sexual objects because that's the culture he was raised in, and seeing women here uncovered and, by Afghan standards undressed, is too provocative for him to resist. Back in Afghanistan the problem wouldn't arise as any woman who might venture out in public would be covered head to toe in a sack. So, send him back. Problem solved. But such thinking clearly didn't occur to our learned tribunal judge.