I don't think the "Human Rights Act" has anything to do with this case.
You may find this hard to believe, but I actually find it reassuring that we live in a country where the judiciary can make independent judgments - think of them what you will - even if this means that it causes a conflict with other consideration.
And as a matter of fact, it is worth considering whether he would not pose a greater risk to the UK - and other countries - were he to return to Somalia. Because who knows what might become of him then, or where else he might go. If he is that big a danger to the UK then presumably he will be monitored while here.
The thing is though that the judge has to rule on whether, in his opinion, this chap is in mortal danger if he returns to Somalia. That doesn't strike me as such an outrageous state of affairs.
Of course other bodies, such as UKBA, will see it differently. But, like I say, I find it reassuring that the judiciary can act independently. We really take that for granted a lot of the time. In many countries (Somalia I suspect included) it cannot.
No he was not innocent of whatever he had done in the past, by the look of it, but what I am asking you is "how do you know he was going to mete out inhumane treatment (i.e. in the future).
I am not saying he shouldn't be sent back to Somalia. I'm not qualified to make that judgment - but I am saying that it is dangerous to wish away hard-won legislation like the HRA, and all the considerations like, it, on the back of the emotion of such cases.
which is why I said "raked over" as opposed to demolished, there is obviously flaws in it like any other but as JTH has pointed out, it was the judges ruling in this case