Daily Mail, on UK Politics, 5 November 2026

6.0out of 10Serious

Albanian illegal migrant who was jailed over £1.5m cannabis plot wins right to fight deportation ''

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.1 finding

An Albanian illegal immigrant jailed for his role in a £1.5million drugs plot has won the right to fight deportation after a judge suggested his crime was not harmful enough. The immigration tribunal found Ndue Paluca's crime may not meet the threshold for 'serious harm' because the cannabis was seized before it was sold on the streets. The judge also found that his deportation would impact his two young children and could violate his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family life.

Chris Philp MP, Shadow Home Secretary, called it 'absurd' that 'being caught red-handed now counts in a criminal's favour'. The criminal entered the UK without permission in 2012 before joining a gang that aimed to make £1.5million a year selling cannabis grown at a series of sites across the Home Counties. Police raided the farms - including two in Ashford, Kent and one in the picturesque village of Watton-at-Stone in Hertfordshire - and seized more than 485 plants, half a kilo of harvested cannabis and more than £61,000 in cash.

Paluca, 30, was jailed for 10 months in 2021 while his 10 fellow Albanian gang members received sentences totalling more than 36 years for what a judge called 'serious organised crime '. In October 2023, he challenged his deportation order under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family life, on the basis that returning him to Albania would be 'unduly harsh' on his Lithuanian partner and two young children.

But in March 2025, a first tier immigration tribunal rejected his challenge and dismissed a subsequent appeal - concluding that the seriousness of his offending outweighed his rights under the ECHR. Paluca's lawyers took his case to the upper tribunal, where they argued that the first tier judge had made several errors - including overlooking the fact that police seized all the cannabis grown by Paluca's gang before it could be sold on and potentially cause harm.

Ndue Paluca has won the right to appeal the Home Office's decision to kick him out of the country after an immigration judge ruled his offence might not be serious enough Cannabis plants at one of the Home Counties farms run by Paluca's gang The senior judge at Field House in central London has now accepted he has the right to pursue a formal appeal against his deportation. At the heart of Paluca's claim is a dispute over whether his offence was serious enough for him to be deported given he was jailed for less than a year - the standard minimum for automatic deportation.

The lower tribunal found that Paluca's offending met the necessary threshold due to the 'serious harm caused by drugs and their wider impact on society'. But Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Grey quashed that finding and ordered his case to be heard by a new judge. She ruled that the first judge had erred in finding that Paluca caused 'serious harm' because police seized the cannabis before it 'circulated within society'. She added that Paluca's role had been working as a 'gardener' at just one of the properties raided by police.

Judge Grey found that her junior colleague had also failed to properly consider the harm that his deportation would cause to his two young children, which could be found to violate his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR. She also criticised the judge for 'failing to meaningfully engage' with a report drafted by a social worker and for failing to take into account evidence that he was a primary carer for his children. 'It follows from what I have said that the appellant's appeal is allowed,' the judge wrote. 'The decision is set aside in its entirety with no findings preserved.'

Judge Grey sent Paluca's appeal back to the first tier tribunal for reconsideration - allowing the criminal to remain in the UK. Chris Philp told the Mail: 'Lawfare has become so absurd that being caught red-handed now counts in a criminal's favour. 'The Conservatives would leave the ECHR, repeal the Human Rights Act and deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals, so crime has consequences.' The finding is the latest in a series of controversial rulings by immigration courts.

Earlier this month, the Mail revealed how a kidnapper had won the right to challenge his deportation after a judge found he could be mistreated in his native Kosovo for being Roma. Avdi Alija, 39, arrived illegally in the UK aged 14 and has been convicted of 50 criminal offences ranging from burglary and theft to cocaine possession and driving while drunk or high on drugs. A first tier tribunal in Newport, South Wales, heard he was part of a gang that kidnapped a man and forced him into a car at knifepoint in 2018.

The immigration judge noted that Alija was considered a danger to the community, which meant he was barred from claiming asylum under the Geneva Convention. However, he was allowed to challenge his deportation order under the ECHR, citing Articles 2, 3 and 4, which protect the right to life and prohibit degrading treatment, slavery and forced labour. Granting his appeal, Judge Boyes concluded that his lack of documents proving his Kosovan nationality - together with his Roma identity - would leave him at risk of ill-treatment.

He cited Vebi Kosumi, an expert witness who concluded that Alija would 'face discrimination, potential exploitation and abuse' if deported to Kosovo.

Read the original article on dailymail.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (1)

The Daily Mail puts 'because his crime didn't cause serious harm' in quotation marks in its headline, though no one in the article says those words. The headline gives this as the single reason he won, while the body shows the judge found only that the first tribunal erred on harm, also relied on the failure to consider his two children, and sent the case to a new judge.

  1. Headline goes beyond the article

    Serious

    “because his crime didn't cause serious harm”

    Why this matters
    The headline puts 'because his crime didn't cause serious harm' in quotation marks as if a judge said it, and gives it as the single reason he won.
    The impression it gives
    A judge ruled that his crime caused no serious harm and let him fight deportation for that reason alone.
    The context
    No one in the article says these words. The Upper Tribunal judge ruled only that the first judge had erred in finding serious harm. She also allowed the appeal because the first judge failed to consider the harm to his two children, ignored a social worker's report and overlooked evidence that he was a primary carer. She did not decide the harm question herself. She sent the case to a new judge.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“the first judge had erred in finding”
    • Elsewhere in the article“failed to properly consider the harm that his deportation would cause to his two young children”
    • Elsewhere in the article“ordered his case to be heard by a new judge”

    Show it in the article

    Written straight

    Albanian man jailed for 10 months over his role in a cannabis gang wins a fresh hearing against deportation after a judge finds the first tribunal erred on harm and on his children's rights.

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Daily Mail

  1. 5 NovBurnham fuels reparations fears as he agrees to 'address' and apologise for Britain's slave trade legacy after tense talks with Commonwealth leaders6.0
  2. 5 NovMinister snaps 'get a life' over fears Brexit deal will spark ban on smoky bacon crisps - as PM faces demands for billions and no criminals returned at big EU summit3.0
  3. 5 NovNeighbours lose battle against millionaire's mega-mansion: 'City's biggest newbuild in 100 years' gets the green light despite being built without permission3.0
  4. 5 NovCrunch time for Brexit: Smoky bacon crisps facing ban in Andy Burnham's controversial EU reset6.0
  5. 5 NovANGUS MACINTYRE: Why I quit the military after 40 years to be Reform's first Armed Forces spokesman0.0

Everything we scored from Daily Mail