A Turkish migrant who murdered his 23-year-old wife in 2005, has been allowed to remain in the UK while an immigration tribunal considers his claim that he would face a “blood feud” if deported to Turkey.
The 54-year-old known as KD, who served 14 years for stabbing his wife multiple times in a jealous rage, initially entered the UK illegally in 2001 and claimed asylum on the basis of his Kurdish ethnicity, Alevi faith, and political affiliation.
KD’s asylum claim was repeatedly rejected. After his release from prison, the Home Office sought to deport him, but he lodged a human rights appeal citing the alleged risk to his life from his wife’s family.
The Court of Appeal acknowledged the discomfort in allowing a convicted murderer to remain in the UK on human rights grounds, describing the situation as “uncomfortable” but emphasizing the legal principles requiring them to consider his claim.
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Legal Loopholes and Human Rights Legislation
The case highlights tensions between public safety and human rights law. Despite KD’s violent crime, courts have been compelled to consider the risk to him from a vendetta in his home country.
Court of Appeal judges Peter Jackson, Arnold, and Dove admitted that it is troubling for “a foreign criminal subject to deportation [to] claim human rights protection because of an alleged blood feud resulting from his crime.” Yet, adherence to legal principle has allowed his appeal to continue.
Romans 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good… a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Criminal Background and Risk Assessment
KD murdered his wife after remaining illegally in the UK for years following failed asylum appeals. A parole board concluded that while he has a low likelihood of general reoffending, he poses a “high or medium” risk of serious harm to intimate partners. Despite this, tribunals have upheld his claim to stay on human rights grounds, exposing a gap in the system between criminal accountability and deportation enforcement.
The case has sparked outrage among politicians and the public. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp condemned the decision as a “sickening” exploitation of human rights laws, arguing that foreign criminals are using legal loopholes to avoid deportation. The case has reignited debates about the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the government’s ability to remove dangerous individuals from the country.
Meanwhile, KD initially entered the UK illegally, claimed asylum, and remained in the country despite multiple rejections. His continued presence, even after committing murder, underscores systemic weaknesses in immigration enforcement, parole monitoring, and the application of human rights law in cases involving serious criminality. Critics argue that the system prioritises legal technicalities over public safety, allowing convicted murderers to exploit loopholes to remain in the UK.
Exodus 12:49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Return to the UK’s Christian Constitution →
“Risk of Abuse”
A Namibian migrant outed as “bisexual” by his male cousin lover has been allowed to remain in Britain because he would face persecution if he were sent back to his home country.
The professional footballer faced verbal and physical abuse from his family when his relationship with his cousin emerged while he was dating a woman.
An immigration tribunal found that the man, who is now in a heterosexual relationship, was a “public figure” in Namibia and might be recognised on his return.
The Namibian, whose identity was kept anonymous, might therefore be at “risk of abuse”.
The case, revealed in court papers, comes as Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, draws up new legislation to limit the use of human rights claims by migrants and foreign criminals to avoid deportation.
Related Cases and Wider Implications
This case is part of a broader pattern of foreign criminals challenging deportation on human rights grounds, often citing risks of harm in their home countries.
Similar cases have involved individuals convicted of violent offences, sexual crimes, or terrorism-related acts using appeals to remain in the UK.
In February 2025, a Jamaican drug dealer avoided deportation after promising he’ll “only smoke” cannabis and not sell it. Shawn Rickford McLeod, 40, arrived in the UK in 2000 but was jailed after supplying class A drugs.
In June 2025, an illegal migrant who used fake documents and was jailed for fraud was granted leave to remain in the UK because she has lived here so long.
Joyce Baidoo overstayed in the UK for 25 years but an asylum court ruled she has been gone from Ghana for too long to send her back.
The 57-year-old has been in the UK without permission since 2000, even avoiding being kicked out of the country when she was jailed for fraud. The Home Office issued a deportation order in 2007 following her conviction but she has remained in the UK.
Barely one month later,/b> another Jamaican murderer won a human rights appeal to stay in the country after a judge said he has an “admirable work ethic”.
The unnamed killer has avoided deportation after an immigration court in Cardiff ruled key facts in the case had not been properly considered.
The situation raises pressing questions about balancing human rights obligations with public protection and whether reforms to deportation law, asylum procedures, or ECHR commitments are needed to prevent repeat exploitation by dangerous individuals.
Paid to Leave
In a twist of events, families of failed asylum seekers will be offered up to £40,000 to leave the UK under a trial scheme announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood.
Ms. Mahmood said the government would seek to forcibly remove failed asylum seekers if they do not accept “incentive payments” of up to £10,000 per person, capped at four per family, within seven days.
The government claims the scheme is expected to target about 150 families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation, and the Home Office estimates it could save £20m if successful. But at the same time, using taxpayers funding to pamper illegal migrants.
However, the Conservatives and Reform UK said the payments would incentivise people to come to the UK illegally.
Related articles
London Bombings: Two Decades Since 7/7 →
Immigration: Welfare without wisdom →
Oppose ‘Islamophobia’ Definition →
Southport killer WAS a terrorist →
“Immigration Increases Strain in Britain’s EU Membership →
Moscow Crocus attack demands peace with
Ukraine and action against Islamic State →
Support us!
We appreciate your support; it enables our research and helps us inform your prayers. So click below to support Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings 
Or fill in the form below to keep in touch:
Click on the social media links below to share this post:
