The kickboxer who embarrassed the Government is appealing the on-again off-again order sending him back to the Czech Republic, where he claims his life is at risk.
Czech national Karel Sroubek, who has been out on parole for almost a year following his drug smuggling jail sentence, is this week mounting a behind-closed-doors appeal to be allowed to stay in New Zealand.
Sroubek, 39, shot to prominence when the former kickboxing champion was granted residency by former immigration minister Iain Lees-Galloway, instead of being deported.
The Minister came under pressure to quit after he wrongly blamed his officials over his failure to properly read their warnings that the star kickboxer was wanted by Interpol for assaulting a Czech police officer, and had run up multiple convictions since arriving in New Zealand.
The Prime Minister was dragged into the furore when it emerged Sroubek's supporters, including social justice campaign Richie Hardcore, had text messaged her thanking her for the decision in late 2018.
Sroubek first came to New Zealand in 2003 under the assumed name Jan Antolik and later gained permanent residency under that name, through the sports talent visa category.
In 2011 he was found guilty of supplying false information to Immigration NZ, and having a false passport. But he was initially discharged without conviction because of his claims that he fled the Czech Republic fearing for his life.
He alleged Czech police pressured him to give a false account in relation to a murder involving a friend in Prague in 2003.
Sroubek claimed that when he declined to give false evidence, he was threatened with being charged as an accessory to murder. He said the police told him that if he went into hiding, he would be declared a fugitive and could be shot on sight.
Fearing for his safety, Sroubek had fled to New Zealand using his friend Jan Antolik’s passport.
The report prepared by Immigration NZ to then minister Lees-Galloway also included that Sroubek was wanted by Czech authorities for attacking police officers and a taxi driver in 1999; he was convicted and sentenced to 54 months' prison there, but skipped the country.
Despite his purported fears, it emerged he had subsequently travelled in and out of the Czech Republic on business.
In September 2018 Lees-Galloway granted Sroubek a new residency visa under his real name after spending 45 minutes reading the 12 page summary provided by Immigration NZ and what officials identified as relevant sections of the 398-page appendices, but not the entire file.
But two months later Lees-Galloway revoked his decision after facing intense public scrutiny, including from the opposition, issuing a new deportation liability notice claiming Sroubek never met the minimum statutory bar to enter New Zealand in the first place.
Sroubek's five day appeal hearing is set to begin on Wednesday at the Immigration and Protection Tribunal this week. Media have been refused in-court access due to other matters under suppression.
National immigration spokesperson Erica Stanford said Sroubek was a “liar and does not deserve to stay in New Zealand”.
“The only reason this case has dragged on for this long is because of the incompetence of then-Immigration Minister Lees-Galloway who cancelled Sroubek’s deportation liability on basis of a lie that his life was in danger in the Czech Republic, despite having travelled back there at least once," she said this week.
“This case should have been all over two-to-three years ago had the Minister spent more than 40 minutes reading the file and making a decision. All of the subsequent delays and costs are a consequence of this appalling decision.”
Stanford said there were also serious questions about why this appeal hearing has taken so long to occur.
"The Immigration and Protection Tribunal has a legal obligation under section 236 of the Immigration Act 2009 to consider such cases before parole is granted. There may be a good reason why the Tribunal has not followed the law in this instance, but given the significant interest in this case I believe the public are owed an explanation as to why this appeal wasn’t heard over a year ago prior to Sroubek’s parole."
Sroubek was released on parole on his fifth attempt last September, one year and five months short of his nearly six year sentence for importing 4.9kg of ecstasy, back in 2014.
He was released after a private psychologist assessed him as a low risk of re-offending. Sroubek’s risk was also to be somewhat mitigated by the imposition of partial residential restrictions, being subject to electronically monitored residential restrictions from 8pm to 7am, the Parole Board said.
Sroubek told the Parole Board if he were to be deported he would be at risk.
He intended to keep a “very low profile” and would rely on support from friends and family, while trying to work in IT, he told the board.
The drivers behind the offending were that he was facing financial difficulty and he did not want to turn to his friends for assistance, Sroubek told the board.
Sroubek said he had no understanding that there were consequences to his actions, that smuggling drugs did not resolve his financial issues, and that he had lost everything.
“He said he has become a better person through his incarceration, and that he has learnt consequences to his actions and to be patient,” the Parole Board said in its decision.
