header-logo header-logo

Judges given guidelines for immigration offences

20 March 2024
Issue: 8064 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , In Court
printer mail-detail
The most serious immigration offences could attract up to 16 years in custody, under Sentencing Council proposals

This would be the case where an offender is convicted of facilitating the illegal entry of large numbers of people for commercial purposes in a way that puts those individuals or rescuers at a high risk of serious injury or death.

The council published six draft guidelines this week, the first to be given to judges and magistrates on immigration offences. They reflect legislative changes to the Immigration Act 1971 brought in by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which introduced new offences and maximum sentences.

They cover a range of offences including assisting illegal entry or arrival (such as smuggling someone in a small boat), using deception to enter or remain in the UK (such as entering into a sham marriage), knowingly entering the UK illegally and breaching a deportation order.

The offence of possessing false identity documents with an improper intention could lead to eight years in prison, while knowingly entering the country illegally would attract up to three years in custody.

Sentencing Council member, District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) Stephen Leake, said: ‘In some cases, illegal immigration is facilitated by organised crime groups who exploit vulnerable people in order to make a profit.

‘It is important that courts have appropriate sentencing guidelines that reflect the current laws when dealing with these cases. Public consultation is an important part of the development of new sentence guidelines, and we welcome the views of anyone with an interest in these draft guidelines.’

Currently, the courts follow case law that has developed over time and the council’s general guideline, when sentencing individuals for immigration offences.

Judges, magistrates and others with an interest in this area are invited to submit their views by 12 June by emailing Vicky Hunt at consultation@sentencingcouncil.gov.uk. For more information, see the consultation paper, Immigration offences, at consult.justice.gov.uk or on sentencingcouncil.org.uk.

Issue: 8064 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , In Court
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll