Read the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruling on Chindamo in full

Eleven years ago, when he was ordered to be detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure for punching and stabbing to death Philip Lawrence, Learco Chindamo was described as a disturbed and troubled teenager caught up in a cycle of gang violence.

Today prisoner sources say he is a “model prisoner” who has been assessed as unlikely to reoffend.

Chindamo, now 26, is currently in Ashwell near Oakham, in Rutland, but is likely to move to open jail conditions later this year in preparation for a hearing before the Parole Board, which will decide if he can be released.

Expert View

The Government should never have suggested to Mrs Lawrence that Chindamo could be deported at the end of his sentence

Alice Miles

• More

• Post a comment

Related Links

• Secret papers disclose Lawrence killer threat

• Decision turned on protection as EU citizen

• Widow attacks Act for ‘working for criminals’

He is eligible for release on parole next January when he has served the minimum term of 12 years laid down by the courts. Even if the Parole Board decides that he is no longer a risk to the public and can be released, Chindamo will be on licence for the rest of his life. In a statement for his appeal against deportation, Chindamo was said to have done all that could be expected of him to address his offending behaviour.

“He was confident that he would be able to lead a full and free life outside prison,” the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal judgment said.

Chindamo’s mother is from the Philippines and his father is Italian. They married in Italy in 1977 and Chindamo was born there in August 1980.

In 1984 his mother was granted custody of him and his two brothers and a legal separation from his father as a result of his violent behaviour towards her. It appears that his mother took Chindamo and his brothers to the Philippines. She then applied for and was granted a residency permit in the UK as a European Economic Area national. Chindamo arrived in this country on January 4, 1987, when he was six years and four months old.

According to the judgment, Chindamo said in a statement for his deportation appeal that he was desperate to get back with his family. It said: “When he comes out of prison he will go to live with them. He refers to the fact that his mother is diabetic and suffering from high blood pressure and he wants to help her.

“In her statement his mother refers to the family history. She remarried in 1993 and lives in a three-bedroom flat with her husband and her son, Wolfgang. Her other son, Rocco, lives with his girlfriend and visits regularly. Wolfgang visits the appellant regularly every month or two months, usually going with their mother, though her health is not always good enough for her to be able to go. Wolfgang also talks to the appellant two or three times a week where possible.

“Neither he nor his younger brother Rocco has any criminal convictions. He and their mother talk about the changes in the appellant and their confidence that he will settle down and obtain work and lead a good life on release.”

The judgment added: “As regards the appellant’s economic situation, of course he has never worked. He has obtained GCSEs in maths, English and art and qualifications in hospitality and catering and health and social care. Before he went to prison he could not read properly or spell his address or his mother’s second name.

“When he was in the open prison at Ford it had been planned for him to try to go to college to get training as a plumber and to get work experience, but this was all put on hold when he was transferred back to a category C prison and he has been unable to do any courses there as he has done all the appropriate courses for category C prisoners.”

The judgment said: “His economic prospects are unclear. He would be living with his family, but would enter the job market as someone with no work experience and with relatively limited qualifications.

“On his own admission the appellant experienced difficulties in integrating into British society, which led him to become involved in a gang around the age of 13. Integration into society on release would clearly pose difficulties for the appellant given his previous problems and the young age at which he went to prison and the notoriety surrounding the offences for which he was convicted.

“As regards his links with Italy, they can really be said to be no more than the fact that he lived there for a few years when he was very young. He does not speak Italian, and does not have contact with his father, an Italian national, who it seems is either in prison in Italy or Spain or on the run from Interpol. It does not appear that the appellant has any other family in Italy.”

The ruling added: “The test is that ‘the Secretary of State must show grounds of public policy, public security or public health if the decision to expel the appellant is to be justified’.

“The Strasbourg Court has repeatedly recognised the general right of states to control the entry and residence of non-nationals and repeatedly acknowledged that the Convention confers no right on individuals or families to choose where they prefer to live. In most cases the crucial question is likely to be whether the interference or lack of respect complained of is proportionate to the legitimate ends sought to be achieved.

“We accept that family life exists. The relationship between the appellant and his mother and brothers transcends normal emotional ties. The appellant has a very supportive family, who will have an important role on his release, to protect him as far as possible from notoriety. We consider that there have been shown to be insurmountable obstacles to the family living together in Italy . . . We conclude that the Secretary of State has not shown that the breach of Article 8, right to family life, that would be occasioned by the appellant’s removal to Italy, would be proportionate.”

The panel members

Judge David Allen, 57, who chaired the panel on Chindamo’s case, has been a senior immigration judge at the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal since 2000. Before that he was a vice-president at the Immigration Appeals Tribunal. For much of his early career he combined practice at the Bar with being an academic. He went to Loughborough Grammar School, Merton College, Oxford, and McGill University, Montreal. He was called to the Bar in 1975 while a lecturer in law at the Inns of Court School of Law. He then went to the University of Leicester. He was a barrister on the Midland and Oxford Circuit from 1990 to 1999 and an immigration adjudicator from 1989 to 2000

Jonathan Lewis, a designated immigration judge, has held that post since 2005. Before that he was an immigration adjudicator. He is also a deputy district judge

Adrian Smith was the lay member on the panel. He has sat as a lay member on asylum and immigration tribunals since 1993

Times Recommends

• Shrinking violet Gordon turns into raging bull
• Eddie Izzard: 'I keep thinking if I do all these things she'll come back'
• Is sex for the disabled the last taboo?