I stand by to be villified...but this story doesn't add up. As he is married to a British citizen, he would have ordinary right for residency (irrespective of a non-indictable offence). Moreover he meets the statutory period to apply to be naturalised. Did he take the tiem to explain his circumstances to the UKBA?
As a Commonwealth recruit I duly applied for Citizenship when it became apparent that without UK citizenship (in spite of being a British Subject) I would never get a DV or related specialist clearances. In spite of this, several years later a chiseller from Innsworth (as was) wrote to me in c 2003 advising me that I had three options because of my 'foreign' nationality:
1. Get naturalised (I was) and renounce my 'foreign' citizenship (I was already naturalised).
2. 'Remuster' to another trade (I was a Sqn Ldr at the time - in a Branch and not a trade).
3. Suffer 'the inevitiable consequences' to my career that a lack of adequate security clearances would bring (I already had the clearances).
This was brought about because of 'coalition information sharing concerns' ie the US discovered that not everyone in the UK Forces was necessarily British. The civil servant in question declined to respnd to telephone calls or emails; eventually a letter from a solicitor pointing out the tautology of the proposal ie to renounce my 'foreign' citizenship required me to renounce the Queen as Head of State.
When we eventually got a response, there was no appology and when pressed about the appalling staff work, he explained that there were over 450 cases and they couldn't invesitage all of the. Sure as eggs, if my case was to do with unfair dismissal due to gender or sexuality, it would have been staffed to the nth degree!
In sum, this chap has had 10 years to apply for citizenship and he is married to a local. Perhaps he was insuffciently eloquent in explaining his case?