Albanian Man Who Entered UK Illegally and Was Jailed Over £1.5 Million Drug Operation Wins Another Chance to Avoid Deportation After Judge Reveals Surprising Reason

An Albanian man who entered the UK illegally and was jailed for his involvement in a £1.5 million cannabis operation has been given another chance to fight deportation after a judge ruled that his crime might not meet the legal definition of causing serious harm.

Ndue Paluca, 30, was part of a criminal gang involved in growing cannabis at several properties across England. The gang was reportedly hoping to make around £1.5 million a year from selling the drugs.

However, an immigration judge has now raised questions about whether Paluca’s involvement caused serious harm to the public, especially because police seized the cannabis before it could be sold on the streets.

The decision has caused controversy, with some politicians questioning why someone convicted of involvement in organised drug crime should be allowed another opportunity to remain in Britain.

Paluca entered the UK without permission in 2012. He later became involved with a group of Albanian men who were operating cannabis farms in different locations, including Ashford in Kent and Watton-at-Stone in Hertfordshire.

During police raids, officers discovered more than 485 cannabis plants, around half a kilogram of harvested cannabis and over £61,000 in cash.

The operation was described in court as serious organised crime. In 2021, Paluca was sentenced to 10 months in prison, while 10 other members of the gang received prison sentences adding up to more than 36 years.

Following his conviction, the Home Office took steps to deport him from the UK.

But Paluca challenged the decision, arguing that sending him back to Albania would have a serious effect on his family.

He has a Lithuanian partner and two young children living in Britain. His lawyers argued that removing him from the country would be unfair to his children and could breach his right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 8 protects people’s right to respect for their private and family life, although this right is not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances.

In October 2023, Paluca formally challenged his deportation.

His case was considered by an immigration tribunal, but in March 2025, the judge rejected his arguments.

The tribunal decided that his involvement in drug crime was serious enough to outweigh his family life rights.

However, Paluca’s legal team refused to give up and took the case to the Upper Tribunal.

His lawyers argued that the first judge had made mistakes when deciding how serious his crime was.

One of their main arguments was that police had seized the cannabis before it reached the streets, meaning the drugs had not been sold to members of the public.

They also pointed out that Paluca had been working as a gardener at just one of the cannabis farms, rather than running the entire operation.

Upper Tribunal Judge Sarah Grey agreed that the earlier decision contained legal errors.

She found that the first judge had not properly explained why Paluca’s actions met the serious harm threshold, particularly when the cannabis had been seized before it could be distributed.

This was important because Paluca had received a prison sentence of less than 12 months, meaning he did not fall under the usual automatic deportation rules for foreign criminals sentenced to at least a year in prison.

Judge Grey also raised concerns about how the earlier tribunal had considered the possible effects of deportation on Paluca’s children.

She said the judge had failed to properly examine evidence suggesting that Paluca played an important role in caring for his children.

A report prepared by a social worker had also not been given enough consideration.

As a result, Judge Grey cancelled the earlier tribunal decision and ordered that the case should be heard again by a different judge.

This means Paluca has been given another opportunity to challenge his deportation and can remain in the UK while the case is reconsidered.

However, the ruling does not mean he has been permanently allowed to stay in Britain. A new tribunal will have to examine the evidence and decide whether his deportation should go ahead.

The decision has attracted criticism from Conservative politicians.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp described the situation as absurd, arguing that it made little sense for a criminal to benefit from the fact that police had stopped the drugs from reaching the public.

He said the Conservatives wanted Britain to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, remove the Human Rights Act and introduce tougher measures to deport foreign criminals and people living in the country illegally.

The case has once again raised questions about how British immigration laws should balance public safety, criminal convictions and the rights of people with families living in the UK.

It also comes after another controversial immigration case involving a man from Kosovo who was allowed to challenge his deportation despite having a long criminal record.

Avdi Alija, 39, arrived in Britain illegally when he was 14 years old and went on to receive convictions for around 50 offences.

His criminal history included burglary, theft, cocaine possession and driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

A tribunal also heard that he had been involved in a gang that kidnapped a man at knifepoint in 2018.

Although the immigration judge recognised that Alija posed a danger to the community, he was allowed to challenge his removal under human rights laws.

His lawyers argued that returning him to Kosovo could expose him to discrimination and mistreatment because of his Roma background and difficulties proving his nationality.

The judge accepted that these circumstances could put him at risk if he was sent back.

Both cases have added to the ongoing debate about Britain’s immigration system and the circumstances in which foreign nationals convicted of crimes should be deported.

For Paluca, the next stage will be another immigration hearing, where a new judge will decide whether the Home Office can legally remove him from Britain or whether his family circumstances and other legal considerations mean he should be allowed to remain.