Mike Tyson (Hansard, 18 May 2000)

§ Mr. Straw

I have today informed Mr. Tyson that he will be granted entry clearance for a single visit of three weeks' duration strictly for the purpose of a boxing match in Scotland on 24 June 2000.

The decision to grant entry clearance has been taken in accordance with Rule 320(18) of the United Kingdom Immigration Rules which requires that admission will not normally be given to those with criminal convictions for relatively serious offences unless it can be justified for strong compassionate reasons, but also bearing in mind the residual discretion which I have under the Rule.

In reaching my decision, I took note of the fact that Mr. Tyson has relevant convictions for the purposes of the application of this Rule. I also noted that there are recent allegations of an assault on an employee of a nightclub in Las Vegas, but we understand this is still under investigation. And I took into account the views expressed by the public about Mr. Tyson visiting the United Kingdom.

I did not consider that there were strong compassionate reasons which would justify admission in Mr. Tyson's case for the purpose of the Rule. However, I concluded that there were other exceptional circumstances which justified his entry to the country for the purpose of participating in the boxing match. My decision took account of the following factors: that Mr. Tyson's behaviour on his previous visit to the United Kingdom was satisfactory; that any risk to the public to which his criminal convictions and other allegations referred to above might be relevant, would be minimised by the circumstances of his proposed visit—ie his high media profile, the presence of his trainers and other supporting entourage, and the limited duration of his visit; and that a refusal to permit entry would result in a loss of economic benefit to the United Kingdom, and in particular to the areas in which engagements took place, and would not enhance the United Kingdom's standing as a venue for major sporting events.

I also took account of the fact that Rule 320(18) currently operates in an inconsistent manner in that those in the public eye whose convictions are known are more likely to be caught by its provisions.