A FAILED asylum seeker convicted of rape and facing deportation is entitled to money from the public purse to travel to see his baby son, the High Court has ruled.

A judge said it seemed to him the jobless Brighton man was entitled to travel expenses for at least fortnightly trips to comply with human rights laws.

The Iranian national who, for legal reasons, can only be identified as MG, won a ruling that the Home Secretary’s refusal to pay up was an “unjustifiable interference” with those rights.

Deputy High Court judge Michael Kent QC, sitting in London, said MG came to the UK in June 2004.

His claim for asylum was refused in September that year and his rights of appeal against that refusal were exhausted in March 2005.

Judge Kent said: “Nevertheless he remained in this country and in September 2009 he was convicted of rape and sentenced to five years imprisonment.”

MG was served with notice of deportation after release on licence from prison – but in fact was not deported and came to live in Brighton.

In March 2012 he began a relationship with a British citizen who gave birth to his child.

Their relationship continued until it broke down in January 2015, but in the meantime MG was recalled to prison for a breach of his licence conditions following a conviction for possessing a Class B drug.

His son was born in September 2013, while he was still in prison, and shortly after his former partner moved to live with her parents in Canterbury, Kent.

The judge said MG was again released from prison the following December and went to live with a friend in Brighton.

A fresh asylum claim was refused and a new deportation order issued in October this year.

The judge said the case was about whether the Home Secretary had properly discharged her obligations to him under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and asylum support regulations made under it.

The judge said this brought into play other legislation, including Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right of everyone to a private and family life.

Under provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UK was also obliged to treat “the best interests” of children as a “primary consideration” when making decisions involving asylum seekers.

Allowing MG’s application for judicial review against the denial of travel expenses, the judge said his task was to ensure that “a decision is not left in place which interferes with the claimant’s and his son’s Article 8 rights in a way which cannot be justified”.

His accommodation was some 130 miles from where his former partner and son, referred to as “K”, lived, and a day return fare for the journey of three and three-quarter hours was £13.55.

The judge said it was argued on MG’s behalf that he and his former partner, before and after the breakdown of their own relationship, had both striven to ensure K maintained contact with his father, and the child had responded well to contact when it occurred. Indirect contact, such as through Skype, was no substitute for face-to-face meetings, the judge said.