The former pub landlord had fled to Britain in 1996 and was given leave to stay because he said he was homosexual and subject to intimidation in Zimbabwe.
When dealing legally and factually with the bizarre; it is the bizarre that must be evidenced factually and shoulder the burden of proof.
It appears that the criminal claimed an innate "homosexual" status barring him from deportation. YET, he did not have to prove his claim? (not saying he could have proved it)...
One aspect premising the issue of proving a disordered sexual orientation (homosexuality) is comprised of physical scientists who can not yet identify or measure ANYTHING physical that establishes an innate homosexual "sexual orientation".
Since a "sexual orientation" other than that derived and assumed based upon evidenced physical attributes e.g. sexual organs has never been proved scientifically to be an innate human characteristic WHY do courts accept such claims?
Again, legally - I would assume the burden of proof as to an innate disordered "sexual orientation" would have to be upon those making the assertion...
I await the first lawsuit challenging the sacred cow of innate homosexuality in a case such as this one where such blind politically correct acceptance of homosexual dogma took priority over that of public safety..