I’m trying to understand the reasons that people other than Daily Mail readers—judges read The Times, of course, The Telegraph being a little too racy—are getting worked up about the omission of deportation in so many cases. From what I’ve been able to work out, the main judicial problem arising from releasing them without deportation is that, when a judge’s sentence includes an explicit recommendation of deport-on-release, then this recommendation is in a sense part of the sentence (and, if you like, of the rehabilitation: if ex-convicts are best being reintroduced into society, then it might in some instances make sense to reintroduce them into the society they grew up with).
Precisely why a recommendation has been included by a particular judge only makes sense when interpreted on a case-by-case basis, although in general part of the social contract for letting non-UK citizens stay in this country is that they do not commit a crime, so that in itself is arguably sufficient reason to deport them (this is why the US used to give you a card to sign saying you weren’t a terrorist, as a means of throwing you out of the country quickly and without paperwork when the need arised; now they just violate your personal space and hope you have a nice day). But for the Home Office to release an offender without considering the judge’s advice on what to do after release is tantamount to them ignoring the original sentence itself; to do it witlessly and recklessly and without reason, as has been done, is serious professional misconduct on the part of the HO.
As regards the possibility of the undeported ex-convict reoffending somewhere else, the crown’s judiciary and the Home Office have constitutional duties first and foremost to the crown’s subjects: if you prefer the terminology, to the honest British taxpayer. Again, the point is not so much that the system ought or ought not to work in that way, but that the way it is currently working has been bypassed by the HO out of sheer incompetence, rather than out of some Donne-inspired compassion towards the citizens of the foreign country who might not want us to return violent individuals to them once they’d got rid of them.
If all the above is true and not merely reasonable, then it’s no surprise that such dry, rational points aren’t being raised in the Daily Mail. But then I never trust anything I read in the Beano either.