IT was while writing the story overnight about the Court of Session quashing Home Secretary Priti Patel’s exclusion of a Ugandan toddler from his adoptive family here that one of those facts that reporters file away mentally came to me in an instant.

The child who will be three next month cannot come to his adoptive family in the UK because the Home Office says the adoption is not recognised in UK law and the right of appeal was refused. He must stay in Uganda.

That’s Uganda, the country from which, as I recalled, Home Secretary Priti Patel’s parents immigrated to the UK in the 1960s – years before Idi Amin expelled Indians from Uganda – a fact that you won’t see on Patel’s UK Government biography nor on her own website. Wonder why? Reading through Lord Malcolm’s wise judgment in the Court of Session yesterday it became clear that Priti Patel was odiously trying to exclude a wee boy from Uganda from being allowed into the UK to join his adoptive family who do have right of residence here.

What utterly disgusting behaviour by a minister whose own parents came here from Uganda. This is not an ISIS bride, not even an economic migrant – for goodness’ sake, this is a bairn that won’t even be three till next month. For several reasons, Priti Patel, I excoriate you, I vilify you, I condemn you to eternity in the biblical Whited Sepulchres reserved for hypocrites. May you rot in Naraka (the Hindu equivalent of Hell) for this evil.

READ MORE: Priti Patel under fire as migrants held in 'completely inappropriate' conditions

No wonder some people, even in your own party, call you Pretty Nasty Patel. Yes, we all know that civil servants make these decisions, but it’s your immigration policy and your name on the petition at the Court of Session and you must take personal responsibility for that which has been done in your name.

And what has been done is wrong, totally wrong. You couldn’t even be bothered to answer the petition and you probably ran a mile from it when you saw that the child’s lawyers were arguing the case on grounds of the child’s human rights – you know, the ones that the Tory right-wing cannot stand. Maybe you decided not to contest the case on compassionate grounds, but I doubt it and you should have told the Court of Session why.

In that restrained syntax that judges use, Lord Malcolm found that the Home Office’s decision not to allow the two-year-old’s family an appeal against his exclusion was unlawful. Then he stuck it to you. He wrote: “Somewhat unusually, no appearance has been entered on behalf of the Secretary of State in the proceedings.”

He added later: “It would have been helpful to have the Secretary of State’s submissions on this.”

Lord Malcolm quashed the decision of the immigration tribunal to refuse the right to make an appeal and sent it back to a “differently constituted” immigration tribunal – a clear hint for the Home Office to think again.

The truth is, Priti Patel, you didn’t even answer the case, never mind turn up in court to defend your department’s decision – they never do, these Tory ministers.

That’s a dereliction of duty, in my opinion, not least because, as Lord Malcolm wrote, there are implications from the Home Office actions.

Some of those implications concern devolution, the Holyrood Parliament, Scots law and the human rights of children. For had the Scottish Parliament’s unanimous decision in March to incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child been allowed to stand instead of being opposed by the Tory government’s Scottish branch manager Alister Jack, then this case would probably not have arisen and the wee boy would already be here. You no doubt thought, Patel, that you could ignore a Scottish court and a Scottish judge. Well, Lord Malcolm was not having that. He’ll undoubtedly award expenses against you – that’s thousands upon thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, for you won’t be paying them yourself.

As explained in Lord Malcolm’s judgment the high and mighty UK Government does not recognise the adoption system of Uganda. That’s Uganda, a former British colony whose legal system is based on English law, complete with High Courts and magistrates. How racist is it to colonise a country then ignore the authorities who derive their law from England? All I can visualise is a wee boy with tears in his eyes as his carers explain to him that he can’t be with his family because white people in suits say so.

I have no doubt there are uber-British nationalists stamping their jackboots and demanding that immigrants be kept out of their version of the UK, but I am equally certain that the vast majority of decent people on these islands will say: "Let the child come to be with his family, for that is the right thing to happen." Listen to them, not the immigrant-hating Tory right.

​READ MORE: Why Priti Patel’s reaction to a manufactured crisis is proving to be so costly

Like most politicians, you probably have the attention span of a gnat. You cannot see that while this boy is just two, one day he will grow up to be a man, and what seething resentment of the UK will he have?

Your great heroine was Margaret Thatcher, the milk snatcher, as many of us recall her. Now you are trying to emulate her by making your own kind of war on children.

You can put a stop to the torment of this child and his family now. You and you alone have the power to cancel all Home Office action against the family, and allow the wee boy into the UK forthwith. You can do so in a telephone call or email.

I know you have to be tough on immigration, not last because of your background, but I beseech you, Priti Patel, as a mother and a human being to show compassion and care for fellow human beings in their distress.

Dry the child’s tears. Let him celebrate his third birthday next month here in the bosom of his family, otherwise you will stand condemned forever as the woman who put political expediency before the needs and necessities of a two-year-old child.