Two-tier justice quango ‘letting hundreds of illegal migrants dodge deportation'
Hundreds of convicted illegal migrants will avoid deportation because of lax Sentencing Council guidelines, Robert Jenrick has warned.
Research by the shadow justice secretary suggests that draft guidance by the Council would allow migrants convicted of immigration offences to escape with sentences below the threshold for automatic deportation.
This is because the Council's 'starting points' for sentences are below the cut-off point of 12 months in jail after which convicted migrants automatically face deportation.
Mr Jenrick claimed the guidelines would 'blow a hole' in border controls by making it more difficult for the Home Office to deport criminals convicted of immigration offences. Crimes could range from illegally entering the UK to deception and possession of false ID documents.
The disclosures come in the wake of a row over the Council's new sentencing rules that give special treatment to criminals from ethnic, religious and gender minorities.
Courts have been told they should 'normally consider' ordering a pre-sentence report on an offender if they come from 'an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community', or are transgender.
The Tories, who first raised the change in guidance, have criticised it as 'two-tier justice' as there are no requirements for similar reports on offenders of any other ethnicity.
Mr Jenrick said: 'The guidelines the Sentencing Council have drafted will blow a hole in border enforcement. Yet again they are acting in a way that disregards parliament's will.
'That's why I brought forward a Bill to restore ministerial oversight to the Council, but shamefully Labour opposed it. The Justice Secretary has chosen to be powerless to stop madness like this and the two-tier sentencing rules.'
The research also found the range of punishment for the most serious immigration offences were set by the Council below the maximum jail terms proposed by the Government.
The Council recommended a custody range of 10 to 16 years for people smuggling when the Nationality and Borders Act set the maximum for facilitating entry to the UK as life imprisonment.
A convicted offender could also get a reduced sentence on the basis that it was a first immigration offence even though it was likely that the vast majority would likely never have been in the country before.
Mr Jenrick's analysis found that for illegal entry, the starting point was as low as six months in jail where there was low harm and low culpability.
Even for the highest harm and culpability, the range was from one year six months in jail to three years in custody, even though the maximum sentence was four years in prison.
For possession of false ID documents, the Council's suggested starting point for the highest harm was nine months in jail, and a community order for lower level harm. The statutory maximum for the offence is two years in jail.
The latest Home Office figures show that 390 migrants were sentenced for the four offences analysed in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available.
It is the first guidance issued by the Sentencing Council on immigration offences and refers judges to the judiciary's Equal Treatment Bench Book.
This book warns judges that 'negative perceptions of migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum are fuelled by parts of the press and some political debate.'
The Ministry of Justice and Sentencing Council have been contacted for comment.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fined for feeding the ducks and picking up litter. How ‘Stasi-like' councils are ripping off Britain
While serious criminal behaviour all too often goes unpunished, councils across the country are increasingly issuing fines for misdemeanours as innocuous as putting the bins out early or feeding the ducks. After one west London man was penalised with a fixed penalty notice (FPN) for putting his bins out early last month – more on which below – the shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, warned that local authorities were veering into 'Stasi-like control of people's lives'. 'Instead of cracking down on genuine antisocial behaviour, the state tries to reassert itself by punishing well-meaning people for tiny infringements,' he told The Telegraph. 'It's the easy thing to do but it's counter-productive and unfair.' Indeed, on-the-spot penalties – condemned by critics as 'busybody fines' – have been rising for years. Data show such fines soared by 42 per cent in the year to 2023, resulting in nearly 20,000 FPNs being dished out, according to research conducted by civil liberties group the Manifesto Club. Although nominally aimed at cracking down on offences such as loitering and littering (offering local authorities a way to deal with relatively minor transgressions outside of court), the seemingly heavy-handed use of these penalties in a justice system where people convicted of grave crimes are often handed short or suspended sentences seems ever more unjustifiable. Here are some of the most egregious examples… Martin Fielder had given up his job to care for his young children after the death of his wife when he was hit with a £500 fine and the threat of a criminal record in February this year. His misdemeanour? An errant envelope that he suspects flew out of his recycling bin. After the envelope had been found by a council warden 250ft from his house, Fielder was accused of fly-tipping in a letter sent by District Enforcement, a private contractor of Welwyn Hatfield borough council that issues FPNs on commission. The ensuing back-and-forth with the council, he said, has left him in a state of 'constant anxiety'. 'The letter stated that if the fine was not paid within 28 days, the matter would be referred to the magistrates' court, where I could go to prison for up to 12 months or receive a bigger fine, or both,' Fielder told The Guardian newspaper. Fielder explained that strong winds the night before could have caused the packaging to fly out of his recycling bin, and the company downgraded the charge to a £100 littering fine. He is now deciding whether to challenge the penalty in court. As in Fielder's case, the administration of FPNs is often outsourced from cash-strapped councils to third-party contractors, prompting critics to suggest the system is used to replenish local authorities' coffers and wide open to exploitation. Indeed, the Manifesto Club's research indicated that the 39 local authorities which employed private enforcement companies were behind 14,633 of the penalties served in 2023, while 261 councils that did not issued just 4,529 by comparison. 'While councils fire off fixed penalty notices for fly-away envelopes, real criminals are being let off the hook,' says William Yarwood of the TaxPayers' Alliance. 'Taxpayers will be rightly jaded that trivial mishaps are being met with extortionate fines. Councils need to make sure that the private companies they hire don't have skewed incentives that encourage the handing out of fines merely to make a profit.' In November last year, Harrow council issued a five-year-old girl with a £1,000 FPN that claimed she had been 'witnessed by a uniformed officer… committing the offence of fly-tipping'. What had actually happened, according to the girl's father, was that parcel packaging with her name on it had been found on a neighbouring street due to overfilled communal bins. The child was then sent a 'final reminder' letter from the local authority's enforcement team the month after, which advised that it was 'about to instruct the council's legal team to start court proceedings'. Her father branded the fine 'absurd' and, after failing to resolve the issue himself, went to a ward surgery held by his local councillor. The issue was then raised at a council cabinet meeting, after which APCOA, the private contractor used by Harrow council to issue FPNs, apologised and the fine was dropped. Faye Borg, 82, was in Morden Hall Park, a National Trust property, in August last year when she was fined £150 for feeding the ducks. She was approached by two council wardens, who issued an FPN that said a 'female was seen throwing biscuits' into the River Wandle. Borg alleges that the two wardens, who worked for Kingdom, a company contracted to provide environmental enforcement services to local authorities, followed her to her doorstep, demanding she 'pay the fine on the spot'. Merton council subsequently apologised, sent a senior member to Borg's home with flowers, and said it was 'taking this matter up with our contractor to ensure that it does not happen again'. 'These kinds of absurd fines exist only because the companies are being paid per fine,' says Josie Appleton, the founder of the Manifesto Club. 'The Government is reviewing fining for profit, but it's taking far too long to do something about it. So long as wardens are being paid per fine, this is going to happen, no matter how many regulations are in place.' Hammersmith and Fulham council fined Clyde Strachan £1,000 for 'fly-tipping' in May when he put his bins out a few hours early. The 37-year-old was going away from his home for a few days, so he put his rubbish and recycling out at midday the day before the refuse was due to be collected. 'I deliberately put them out of the way on the pavement, tucked to one side against the wall so they weren't in anyone's way,' he said. 'It meant I had put them out about six or seven hours before… I would normally take them there.' When he returned home, however, he was issued with a £1,000 FPN, reduced to £500 if it were paid early. It stated: 'There was one large box, six bags of waste, and one food bin deposited on the pavement and left. It isn't collection day so it shouldn't be there.' The penalty was cancelled after Strachan appealed. He argued it was 'excessive' given he had made an 'honest mistake'. Last month, Richard Cameron, 45, was found guilty of four cycling offences for pedalling down Victoria Street in Grimsby town centre, which is subject to a public spaces protection order intended to deal with recurrent antisocial behaviour. In a press release, North East Lincolnshire council said that Cameron had received four FPNs for 'recurrent cycling offences' but 'had not paid the fines and was therefore summoned to Grimsby magistrates' court'. It continued: 'Also being prosecuted that day was Viktorija Kosareva, 28, of Smith Square, Doncaster, who was summoned for not paying an FPN she received for walking her dog on Cleethorpes beach when not permitted to do so… Neither individual attended court and both were proven guilty in their absence.' Cameron was ordered to pay £1,224, consisting of a £660 fine, £264 victim surcharge and costs of £300. Rubbish dumped on Veronika Mike and Zoltan Pinter's street in Stoke-on-Trent had started to attract rats, so they took matters into their own hands. The couple said the area had been blighted with 'disgusting' litter for years and 'just wanted it clean', so collected the refuse into an old cardboard box – addressed to Pinter – that he placed by his bins in the hope that it would be taken away by Stoke-on-Trent city council. 'I couldn't put it in the bins because they were full, so I left it beside them,' he said. A week later, Pinter was issued an FPN for 'an offence of failing to transfer waste to an authorised person', and fined £600. Mike was fined the same, despite her name not appearing on the cardboard box. The couple are paying the penalty in monthly instalments. When Violet Cooper, 38, arrived to collect Juliet, her lost chow-chow dog, in August last year, she was issued with a notice requiring her to update the microchip details within 21 days (microchipping has been compulsory for pet cats and dogs since April 2016). Cooper failed to do so, and last month was found guilty at Salisbury magistrates' court of failing to comply with the notice. She was fined £847.59 – a fine of £220, plus £539.59 in costs and an £88 victim surcharge. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Watch: Man ‘being deported' flees plane at Heathrow
Credit: Big Jet TV A man who was being deported from Britain escaped from a plane at Heathrow Airport before being tackled by security staff. Footage posted online showed the man sprinting away from airport staff as passenger jets took off and landed close by. The incident lasted several minutes before the man was apprehended by workers wearing hi-vis vests. He was detained on the ground with the support of police officers who were also on the scene. The Telegraph can reveal that the man had been due to be deported from the UK to India when he broke free from immigration officers and attempted to escape. After being restrained, he was returned to the flight he had been due to board and is understood to have now left the UK. A Heathrow spokesman said: 'Working with partners, we have quickly resolved an incident at the airport involving an individual who accessed the airfield taxiway. The individual has been removed from the airport. 'The airport continues to operate as normal, and passengers are travelling as planned.' The Home Office has been approached for comment. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Spending review now settled, says Downing Street
The government's latest spending plans are settled, the prime minister's official spokesman has said. Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to expected to announce funding increases for the NHS, schools and defence, along with a number of infrastructure projects, when she sets out her day-to-say spending and investment plans for each department in Wednesday's Spending Review. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper was the last to fix a deal on Monday afternoon, following public warnings from police chiefs, calling for more money. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner reached a deal with Reeves and the Treasury on Sunday evening. Reeves has loosened Treasury borrowing rules to free up about £113bn for investment in infrastructure projects, but will need to squeeze budgets elsewhere in order meet her own rules, which include not borrowing to fund day-to-day spending. Last week, she admitted that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding for projects she would have wanted to back. Ministers seeking to protect their budgets remained locked in budget talks over the weekend. Announcing ministerial negotiations over the government's spending review had been completed, the prime minister's official spokesman said the chancellor would be investing in public services and growth. "The spending review is settled - we will be focused on investing in Britain's renewal so that all working people are better off," he said. "The first job of the government was to stabilise the British economy and the public finances, and now we move into a new chapter to deliver the promise and change." The Home Office had argued privately that police numbers must be maintained for the government to deliver its policy commitments on neighbourhood policing, but that under the spending proposals this would not be possible. Police chiefs including Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, had publicly lobbyied the government for more money in recent weeks, and there were suggestions the Treasury might have "imposed" a settlement on the Home Office. Over the weekend, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg the chancellor was facing pressure from all departments for additional funding. Kyle said "every part of society was struggling" and declined to rule out a squeeze on policing. The last-minute talks with Cooper come ahead of what is set to be a highly significant week for every part of government. Reeves has already U-turned on removing Winter Fuel payments from all but the poorest pensioners, and will now give these 75% of pensioners, which will cost an estimated £1.25bn. The government has also pledged to hike defence spending, invest £86bn in science and technology, and give free school meals to half a million more children. To balance the spending, Reeves has announced a £14bn package of savings in March, including £4.8bn of welfare cuts. However, opponents have accused the government of having the wrong priorities. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "They have chosen to prioritise spending on Ed Miliband's mad green projects, on inflation-busting pay rises for their trade union paymasters and spending £100bn a year – five times the police budget – on debt interest payments." Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has urged the chancellor to rule out cuts to social care, which is financed through local councils. He said the government would have "more money in the pot, more growth, more revenue" if it pursued closer trading ties with Europe. Home secretary yet to agree deal days before spending review Spending Review: Massive cheques from the chancellor for some - but what do totals hide? Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
