Mike Tyson (Hansard, 17 January 2000)

§ Lord Bassam of Brighton

Mike Tyson arrived in the United Kingdom on Sunday 16 January and was given leave to enter until 30 January for the purposes of the scheduled contest on 29 January. He was admitted under an instruction to immigration officers which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 13 January and which was made under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. Given the high profile nature of this case and the complex issues that it raised, my right honourable friend took the view that it would have been invidious for an individual immigration officer to have to weigh the competing considerations involved.

My right honourable friend was advised that the relevant immigration rule, which has been in place in this form since 1994, provides that normally persons with convictions for offences which in this country attract a maximum sentence of 12 months', or more, imprisonment are to be refused leave to enter but leaves a discretion to allow entry if there are strong compassionate circumstances or the case is otherwise exceptional. My right honourable friend considered representations sent by Mr Frank Warren against the background of this advice and concluded that there were no strong compassionate circumstances but there were other exceptional circumstances in this case which justified granting leave to enter to Mr Tyson. He took account, in particular, of evidence presented to him in these representations of the effects on small providers of ancillary services, some of whom could have been facing bankruptcy because they have invested heavily in the contest and who are innocent third parties. He also took acount of the effect on business in the Manchester area and the inconvenience and disappointment of the many thousand members of the public who have purchased tickets for the fight in good faith if entry had been refused and the contest cancelled of this notice.

Further, my right honourable friend was not satisfied that in practice this immgration rule has had consistent outcomes in the past; and took that into account in determining whether this case was exceptional. Persons seeking leave to enter the United 141WA Kingdom are not routinely asked whether they have relevant previous convictions on the landing card or otherwise (though they would be so asked if from countries requiring a pre-entry visa).

My right honourable friend has, therefore, asked for a full review to be carried out of the rules and practice relating to admission of persons with previous convictions. He will report the outcome of this review to Parliament when it is completed.