‘Soft’ new guidelines could mean more migrants could avoid deportation in new scandal
A major row has erupted over controversial new sentencing proposals that critics warn will severely weaken Britain’s ability to deport foreign criminals. The independent Sentencing Council has drafted guidelines suggesting significantly reduced prison terms for immigration offences – recommendations that could allow hundreds of offenders to avoid automatic deportation each year. Under current rules, foreign nationals sentenced to 12 months or more face mandatory deportation consideration, but the new advice would see many offenders fall below this crucial threshold.
The proposed guidelines have sparked fury among immigration hardliners, with former minister Robert Jenrick leading the charge against what he calls “catnip for human rights lawyers.” The recommendations suggest sentences as low as six months for illegal entry (despite a four-year maximum), nine months for immigration deception (against a two-year maximum), and just nine months for possessing false documents (where the law allows up to ten years). Legal experts warn this softer approach will create a major loophole in border enforcement, with potentially dangerous consequences for public safety.
The controversy comes alongside shocking revelations that thousands of convicted foreign criminals are being housed indefinitely in taxpayer-funded accommodation because the UK lacks deportation agreements with their home countries. Asylum providers confirm that violent offenders, including sex criminals and drug dealers, are being transferred to community housing “on an indefinite basis” when they cannot be removed. With over 18,000 foreign offenders already living in the community and deportation flights struggling to take off, the sentencing changes threaten to exacerbate an already critical situation.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Sentencing Council has separately proposed what critics call a “two-tier justice system” where ethnicity and gender identity could affect sentencing outcomes. The guidance suggests judges should consider pre-sentence reports for transgender or ethnic minority offenders to “tailor” their punishments – a move opponents argue undermines the principle of equal treatment under the law. While Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood has pledged to reverse these proposals, the changes may remain in place for months before any legislative fix takes effect.
The growing crisis highlights the tension between border security priorities and human rights considerations in Britain’s legal system. With migrant hotel costs still running at £5.5 million per day and public concern about immigration at record highs, the government faces mounting pressure to demonstrate control. However, legal experts caution that simply toughening sentences without addressing systemic issues in the deportation system may prove ineffective. As the debate intensifies, victims’ groups warn that the real cost will be borne by communities if more foreign offenders remain in the country rather than being removed after serving their sentences. The coming months will test whether ministers can reconcile these competing demands while maintaining public confidence in both the justice system and border controls.
