The bill creates two criminal offences: (1) being present in the UK after 31 March 2025 without “legal authority,” and (2) entering or attempting to enter the UK after that date without legal authority. Conviction is on summary proceedings with maximum imprisonment terms set differently across the jurisdictions (England & Wales and Scotland up to 12 months; Northern Ireland up to 6 months) and/or fines.
The bill establishes a presumptive deportation regime: any person convicted must be subject to a deportation order unless the Secretary of State files a certificate saying deportation is against the public interest. The measure is short and tightly focused, but it packs substantial practical consequences for policing, prosecutions, the Home Office removal system, courts, and the rights of those who seek asylum or live without formal leave.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes it a summary criminal offence to be in, enter, or attempt to enter the UK without legal authority after 31 March 2025. Conviction carries only summary penalties and triggers a deportation order by default unless the Secretary of State certifies otherwise.
Who It Affects
People present in the UK or attempting to enter after 31 March 2025 with no lawful basis, law enforcement and prosecutors handling summary criminal cases, the Home Office’s removal teams, and legal and civil-society organisations advising migrants and asylum-seekers.
Why It Matters
By turning unlawful presence and entry into criminal offences with a presumptive deportation outcome, the bill transfers a large portion of immigration control into the criminal justice process and alters incentives for detection, prosecution, and removal—raising operational, rights-protection, and resource questions for multiple agencies.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is very short but consequential. It defines two offences keyed to a single date: anyone present in the UK after 31 March 2025 without “legal authority” commits an offence, and anyone who enters or attempts to enter after that date commits an offence.
The text does not define “legal authority,” nor does it create exceptions or set out procedural safeguards for people who may have protection claims.
All prosecutions must be on summary conviction, with maximum custodial terms set by jurisdiction (12 months in England & Wales and Scotland; 6 months in Northern Ireland) and fines where stated. The bill does not create any new arrest, search, or detention powers; it relies on existing criminal and immigration law enforcement mechanisms to detect and bring people before the courts.The deportation mechanism is presumptive: a convicted person “shall be subject to a deportation order” unless the Secretary of State issues a certificate that deportation would be against the public interest.
Practically, this flips the default—deportation follows conviction unless the executive intervenes to block it. The bill provides no detail on timing, review rights, or how the Secretary of State’s certificate interacts with existing protections such as non-refoulement obligations.Because the Act comes into force the day it is passed and uses a clear retrospective cut-off (31 March 2025), it applies to anyone present after that date and to entries after it.
That structure creates a sharp legal divide but leaves numerous operational blanks: who will prosecute routine unlawful-presence cases, how evidence of “authority” is to be established, how claims for asylum or vulnerability will be handled in fast-moving summary proceedings, and how the Home Office will manage faster or more numerous deportations without additional statutory process.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes two offences tied to 31 March 2025: unlawful presence after that date, and unlawful entry/attempted entry after that date.
All prosecutions are on summary conviction only; maximum custody on conviction is 12 months in England & Wales and Scotland, and 6 months in Northern Ireland (fines also available).
A deportation order is the default consequence of conviction; the Secretary of State must file a certificate to the court to prevent deportation on public-interest grounds.
The bill contains no statutory definition of “legal authority,” no exception for asylum or other protection claims, and no procedural detail on how deportation decisions will be made post-conviction.
The Act comes into force on the day it is passed and extends to England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, creating immediate operability across the UK once enacted.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates two criminal offences tied to 31 March 2025
Section 1 literally converts two immigration statuses into criminal offences: unlawful presence after the specified date, and entering or attempting to enter after that date. The provision is procedural-light: it states the conduct that is prohibited but does not define key terms (notably “legal authority”) or list defences or exemptions. Practically, this forces courts and prosecutors to determine lawful status in criminal trials without statutory guidance, increasing evidentiary and operational burdens on magistrates and police.
Summary penalties and a presumptive deportation rule
Section 2 sets out the sentencing ceilings by jurisdiction and introduces the deportation default. Making these offences summary-only limits sentencing severity and confines cases to magistrates’ courts, but the deportation consequence is significant and administrative rather than discretionary: conviction triggers deportation unless the Secretary of State intervenes with a certificate that it would be against the public interest. The section is silent on how and when that certificate is to be lodged, what standards apply, and how it interacts with existing removal safeguards such as human-rights assessments.
Geographic scope, immediate commencement, and short title
Section 3 confirms UK-wide extent and immediate commencement on enactment. The combination of an immediate commencement clause and the 31 March 2025 cut-off means the Act would be operational as soon as passed and apply to anyone present after the stated date; there is no phased implementation, transitional regime, or administrative preparation period written into the bill.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Home Office and ministers seeking a statutory deterrent: the bill gives the executive a clearer criminal-law lever to support removal policy and a presumptive deportation outcome that centralises decision-making with the Secretary of State.
- Border enforcement agencies and police: a standalone criminal offence may simplify charging decisions in routine unlawful-entry/presence cases where contemporaneous immigration powers are not being used, and could provide a prosecutable pathway where civil removal is slow or contested.
- Prosecutors and magistrates courts: summary-only offences provide a legally certain charge for routine cases, which can streamline case categorisation and reduce the need to pursue complex civil immigration proceedings in some circumstances.
- Private removal and escort providers: a higher volume of deportation orders following conviction could increase demand for logistical services that support enforced removals.
- Employers and landlords seeking compliance tools: a criminal offence for unlawful presence may strengthen the practical incentive for third parties to carry out right-to-work and right-to-rent checks, as identification of unlawful presence will have clearer criminal remedies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Migrants, including asylum-seekers and those with unresolved protection claims, who face criminalisation for presence and a near-automatic deportation consequence absent ministerial intervention.
- Legal-aid providers and NGOs: the bill will increase demand for early legal advice, judicial review petitions, and representation in fast summary proceedings, stretching already tight resources.
- Courts, police, and prisons: summary prosecutions and subsequent removals will create additional caseload and custodial demand, particularly if prosecutions are used as an enforcement route when civil removal is delayed.
- Home Office caseworkers and removal teams: the presumptive deportation regime shifts workload onto the Home Office for preparing and executing deportations and for deciding when to issue public-interest certificates—an unfunded operational burden in the text.
- Devolved justice systems and administrations: Scotland and Northern Ireland will have different sentencing ceilings and operational practices, creating cross-border enforcement friction and administrative complexity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central tension is between two legitimate but conflicting goals: deterring and removing unauthorised migrants by using criminal law, and protecting vulnerable people and state obligations by preserving individualized administrative safeguards. Criminalisation and a deportation default advance deterrence and administrative simplicity, but they do so at the cost of compressing time and legal safeguards that protect asylum claimants and other vulnerable individuals—creating a trade-off with no simple administrative fix in the text.
The bill addresses a political policy aim with legal bluntness and leaves several implementation-critical questions unanswered. It creates a criminal offence without defining “legal authority,” meaning courts will need to decide what counts as lawful status (e.g., expired leave, pending applications, or temporary protection) on a case-by-case basis.
That gap risks inconsistent outcomes and raises evidential problems: will the defence have the burden to prove lawful status, or will the prosecution need to discharge it? The bill provides no procedural timeline for when the Secretary of State must issue the public-interest certificate to block deportation, nor does it specify any standard or rationale that the court must accept.
The presumptive deportation design also collides with international obligations and existing domestic safeguards. Non-refoulement and protection claim assessments typically occur before removal; by making deportation the default following criminal conviction, the bill risks expediting removals prior to full protection screening unless domestic policy or guidance ensures continued access to asylum processes.
Operationally, shifting enforcement into summary criminal courts will increase pressure on policing, prosecution and custodial capacity, and it may incentivise targeting populations who are easier to detect—raising risks of discriminatory enforcement. Finally, the bill’s lack of provision for children, victims of trafficking, or seriously vulnerable people leaves unresolved how protected groups will be identified and safeguarded in a fast-moving criminal process.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.