‘We are in hiding’: Briton with severe health issues fears deportation from Sweden

Mark Smith is hiding because Sweden has treated him as someone without legal permission to remain. He fears being detained and deported, despite living in Sweden since 2017 and suffering serious health problems. He and his wife left their apartment in Falkenberg for a caravan park.

Officials told Smith by phone that he was an “alien” and should leave Sweden by 17 October. A court later allowed him until 20 October to submit an application for a retrial concerning his indefinite deportation. The court did not suspend the deportation decision.

Smith says Swedish authorities previously told him he did not need to take action after Brexit. He registered with the population register, worked, held private health insurance, and supported his wife. He now fears police action, while his wife says his health may not allow him to survive until Christmas.

The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is the legally binding treaty governing rights after the United Kingdom left the European Union. For Britons already living in EU countries, it was meant to protect their ability to remain under their existing free-movement rights. That protection matters because losing status could separate families or expose vulnerable people to removal.

The article says governments had to communicate the residency rules clearly. They also had to consider late applications when there were reasonable grounds. Decisions were supposed to be proportionate, including when people were vulnerable or seriously ill.

Smith’s case raises questions about whether those protections worked in practice. He says officials told him he needed to do nothing, yet Sweden later said he should have applied. A citizens’ rights activist argues that cases involving severe illness should receive urgent attention. The European Commission has previously said Sweden was not breaking the law.

EU countries used different administrative systems for Britons who were already resident before Brexit. Sweden was one of 13 EU member states requiring those residents to make a formal application to remain. Countries such as Spain instead allowed Britons to declare that they were residents, without using the same application process.

This difference created a major risk for people who misunderstood official advice. Smith says he asked Sweden’s tax authorities three times whether Brexit required action. He says they told him no and said he should wait five years before applying for permanent residency. He therefore did not make the required application at the time.

Smith later applied after becoming ill and learning that he should have applied for post-Brexit residency. The case shows how a formal system can produce severe consequences when residents receive unclear or incorrect guidance. The article says many other Britons reported similar experiences.

Sweden has deported 458 Britons under its approach to post-Brexit residency rules. The figure includes people whose cases have attracted attention because they had strong connections to Sweden or serious personal vulnerabilities.

The article separately describes removal orders involving two other people. Joyce Thomas, a 78-year-old widow, is fighting a removal order after her husband was reportedly told there was nothing to do about Brexit residency. Sweden also issued a removal order to a man with dementia who had lived in the country for 25 years and received round-the-clock care.

These cases have increased pressure on Sweden over how it applies the Withdrawal Agreement. The treaty requires proportionate decisions and consideration of vulnerable people. Smith is also facing an indefinite deportation decision, but the article presents his case separately from the two described removal-order cases. A court gave him until 20 October to seek a retrial.

If Sweden carries out the deportation, Smith could be forced to leave the country despite his serious health conditions. He has had heart attacks, strokes, severe headaches, and chronically high blood pressure that has been difficult to treat. He has also been told he cannot drive or fly.

The consequences would extend beyond Smith. His wife, Petra, says they have been together for 12 years and that deportation would be devastating. Smith co-parents her 15-year-old son, who has special needs. Removing him could disrupt that family relationship and leave Petra managing the situation alone.

Smith’s wife also fears that his health may not allow him to live until Christmas. The article does not state what final decision will follow. Smith has until 20 October to submit an application for a retrial, while the court has not suspended the deportation decision. His case is being publicised as an example of wider concerns.

Under the Withdrawal Agreement, Sweden had responsibilities beyond simply processing applications. It had to communicate the Brexit residency rules to affected Britons. Clear communication mattered because residents needed to know whether they had to apply, declare their status, or provide evidence by a deadline.

Sweden also had to consider late applications when there were reasonable grounds. The treaty required proportionate decisions, including decisions involving vulnerable people. Smith says he sought guidance three times from the tax authorities and was told he did not need to do anything. He later became seriously ill and applied after officials told him an application was necessary.

Those facts are central to the dispute. Activist David Milstead says many Britons received vague or unhelpful information. Sweden has deported 458 Britons, while the European Commission has previously said Sweden was not breaking the law. The article says questions remain about proportionality and treatment of vulnerable people.

A residence permit based on Brexit-era free-movement rights records protection already granted by the Withdrawal Agreement to Britons living in an EU country before Brexit. An ordinary immigration application instead asks for permission under the country’s usual immigration rules. This distinction matters because the Brexit route is tied to pre-existing residence and treaty protections, not simply a new request to enter or stay.

Smith says he had lived in Sweden since 2017, worked, held private health insurance, supported his wife, and registered with the population register. He also says authorities told him he needed to do nothing after Brexit. When he later became ill, officials said he should have applied for post-Brexit residency.

His case therefore concerns whether a late Brexit-residency application should be assessed under the treaty’s protections. Those include reasonable grounds for lateness and proportionate treatment of vulnerable people. The article does not give the final legal ruling on that distinction.