Outrage Erupts Over ‘Soft’ New Guidelines That Could Let More Migrants Dodge Deportation in Latest Scandal

Concerns are growing over new draft sentencing guidelines that critics say could make it easier for foreign offenders to avoid deportation—and pile pressure on an already overstretched immigration system. The Sentencing Council’s latest recommendations have sparked a political firestorm, with claims they could “blow a hole in border enforcement.”

At the heart of the row is a move by the Sentencing Council to encourage judges to hand down prison terms of less than 12 months for certain immigration offences—despite the law allowing much tougher penalties. And that’s significant, because anyone jailed for 12 months or more becomes eligible for deportation.

The council’s proposed guidance suggests lighter sentences even for offences like entering the UK without permission, using false identity documents, or trying to trick immigration officials. For example, knowingly entering the country illegally could land someone just six months inside, far below the four-year maximum. Using fake ID? The council says to start at nine months, while the law allows up to ten years.

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick didn’t mince his words. He said: “The guidelines the Sentencing Council has drafted will blow a hole in border enforcement. Yet again, they are acting in a way that disregards parliament’s will.” He went on to accuse Labour of blocking his Bill that would’ve restored ministerial oversight, and warned these “soft sentence guidelines” will be a gift to human rights lawyers.

He’s also furious over what he calls “two-tier sentencing rules.” The Sentencing Council has previously recommended that pre-sentence reports should be tailored for offenders who are transgender or from ethnic minorities, suggesting judges take their background into account. Critics say this could lead to white offenders being more likely to go to jail, while others receive more lenient sentences. Jenrick labelled it “deeply unfair” and warned it could cost taxpayers tens of millions, overwhelm probation services, and delay justice for victims.

Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has pushed back, vowing to undo the changes in Labour’s upcoming Sentencing Bill. But with that legislation unlikely to come into force for at least a year, Jenrick warned the country faces a crisis as early as April. “It will reignite fears over the abuse of Britain’s immigration system,” he said—and it seems those fears are already bubbling.

The Daily Express has uncovered yet another troubling development: thousands of foreign criminals are reportedly being housed indefinitely in taxpayer-funded asylum accommodation. Thanks to a lack of international returns agreements, these individuals—many of whom are under curfew or tagged—can’t be deported, and are instead moved into asylum housing, often for the long term.

According to Home Office figures, over 18,000 foreign criminals were living in the community last autumn. Nearly 40,000 migrants are still in hotel rooms at an eye-watering cost of £5.5 million a day. That’s £145 a night per person, compared to just £14 for standard accommodation like flats or shared housing.

Serco, one of the government’s asylum housing providers, has proposed converting student halls and other sites to cut costs—but most ideas have been turned down. As it stands, Labour’s plan to close down migrant hotels looks shaky without cheaper alternatives being approved.

With soaring costs, overcrowded systems, and now controversial sentencing guidelines on the table, it’s clear the UK’s immigration debate is heading into even stormier territory.