Burglar who stole £100,000 worth of cars avoids being deported to Sweden because he has ADHD

A burglar who stole £100,000 worth of cars has been spared deportation to Sweden after a judge accepted his ADHD would make it harder for him to settle there. 

Eid Ajam, 21, was jailed for two years and 11 months for his role in a gang that stole seven cars across the West Midlands.

But the Swedish national was spared deportation to Sweden after arguing that he could not speak Swedish, has no family there and has never lived on his own.

A first-tier immigration tribunal judge in Nottingham said his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) would make settling in an unfamiliar country even more difficult.

Judge Shahzad Aziz said the condition was 'capable of increasing the practical difficulties' he would face.

He said Ajam's lack of support in Sweden, 'when considered together with his ADHD and lack of practical experience of independent living', meant he faced significant obstacles to living there.

The judge allowed his human rights appeal despite finding that he had continued to play down his involvement in the burglaries and had not fully rehabilitated.

Ajam successfully appealed against deportation under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to private and family life.

Eid Ajam, 21, was jailed for two years and 11 months for his role in a gang that stole seven cars across the West Midlands

The criminal, from Solihull, was part of a gang that targeted homes across the West Midlands and Worcestershire in November and December 2023. 

The thieves broke in at night, often while families were inside, and stole car keys before driving away high-end motors.

They used disguises and had arrangements in place to dispose of the stolen cars quickly.

Victims were left frightened and anxious, with one family so badly affected that they moved house.

Last November, Worcester Crown Court heard Ajam had been involved in all 11 burglaries and the theft of seven vehicles worth more than £100,000.

His role was far from minor, with the judge describing him as close to a ringleader. 

But when fighting deportation, Ajam initially claimed he had simply gone for a drive with his friends and was shocked when police stopped their car and linked it to burglaries.

He insisted he had not entered any of the houses or stolen anything himself.

After repeated questioning, he eventually admitted to acting as a lookout and sometimes driving stolen vehicles away.

The tribunal heard that Ajam was born in Sweden to parents of Lebanese heritage but moved to Britain with his mother and siblings when he was seven or eight.

He was educated here, studied engineering at college and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2019.

His mother and three sisters all live in Britain, and he has no relatives or friends in Sweden.

He attended school there for only a few months and had never worked in the country.

Judge Aziz accepted that Ajam was intelligent enough to learn Swedish and would have access to the country's welfare system.

But his lack of experience of living alone, limited links to Sweden and ADHD were sufficient to tip the balance in his favour.

The judge said the decision had been reached by a 'narrow margin' and warned the criminal that further offending could lead to fresh deportation proceedings.

He wrote in his judgment: 'In allowing the appeal, I do not minimise the seriousness of the offending behaviour or the impact that his criminality has had on the victims of his offences. 

'Nor should this decision be understood by the appellant as preventing the respondent from taking future deportation action should circumstances materially change. 

'The appellant should understand that this appeal has succeeded on its particular facts and by a fine margin. 

'Should he commit further offences, the respondent would be entitled to consider afresh whether deportation action is appropriate, and any future tribunal would be required to assess the circumstances then prevailing.'

The finding is the latest in a series of controversial rulings by immigration courts.

Last week, an Albanian illegal immigrant jailed for his role in a £1.5million drugs plot 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 affect his two young children and could violate his rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, 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'. 

Judge Grey sent Paluca's appeal back to the first-tier tribunal for reconsideration.