Your counter argumentation is not built yet
When you take a person or an administration in front of a court, you need a counter story. The judge will listen to both parties. In your case, the Home Office will tell a story: he disregarded the law, he absconded, he worked illegally, he frustrated our efforts to enforce the law... etc.
In response to that, you need a strong story with compelling circumstances. So when the judge analyses the claim of both parties, he or she may have a chance to rule on your favour.
Otherwise, it will just sound like "Ok, what happened happened but please let me get away with it!". This would mean that the offender didn't even measure the seriousness of what he did.
If you are lucky, you can get a judge who doesn't like the Home Office. But still in such case, the judge cannot take a decision that could undermine the rule of the law. That's why it's important to provide arguments as strong as possible.
The fact that you have financial liabilities such as credit cards or loans in the UK is not an argument. Even if you leave the country, these liabilities will not disappear. If you just ignore them, you may come back in X years and find yourself unable to get an electricity supply or a phone on contract.