A fraction of the people arriving in the UK on small boats have been prosecuted under laws Priti Patel claimed would deter Channel crossings.
Crossing the English Channel in a dinghy became illegal on 28 June, in a move the UN Refugee Agency said “criminalises seeking asylum”, but only 60 people – 0.2 per cent or one in 500 – arriving have been charged over their journey.
The former home secretary told parliament the wide-ranging Nationality and Borders Act was necessary to “break the business model of the smuggling gangs” but a record of almost 30,000 people have crossed the Channel since the new criminal offences came into force.
Home Office figures obtained by The Independent show that 85 people have been prosecuted under the controversial package of laws.
Arriving without “entry clearance” – an offence created for small boat crossings that were previously not a crime – was the most common charge, followed by “facilitating the commission of a breach of UK immigration law by a non-UK national”, which has been used 28 times.
Thirteen people have been charged with entering the country in breach of a deportation order and seven have so far been prosecuted for possessing identity documents “with intent”.
Only two charges have so far been recorded for the offence of “helping an asylum seeker to enter the UK”, which the government assured parliament would not be used against the RNLI and humanitarian organisations.
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines for Nationality and Borders Act offences make clear that charges will not be brought in every case.
They state that prosecutors must consider the “humanitarian aims of the Refugee Convention” when deciding whether to prosecute asylum seekers, adding: “In relation to illegal entry offences, it may be that those refugees, or presumptive refugees, who commit criminal offences as a necessary part of their journey to the UK are not prosecuted.”
The Home Office refused to give information on the nationality, age or other details of the people prosecuted, and The Independent understands that most of the cases are still progressing through the courts.
Backing the Nationality and Borders Act in parliament, Ms Patel told MPs it would “deter illegal entry to the UK, and, importantly, will break the business model of the smuggling gangs and protect the lives of those whom they are endangering”.
“It [will become] illegal to arrive in UK waters without permission,” the former home secretary added. “A maximum prison sentence for entering the country illegally will increase from six months to four years. We are sending a signal to those criminal gangs that there is increased risk of paying for propping up criminal activity to get to the UK illegally.”
Channel crossings have continued to surge to new records, with more than 40,000 migrants arriving in small boats so far this year and over nine in 10 claiming asylum.
Numbers show no sign of slowing despite a raft of policies the government claimed would act as deterrents, including the Rwanda deal, Royal Navy patrols, advertising campaigns and the threat of pushbacks at sea.
Opponents of the government’s approach argue that no asylum seekers should be criminalised for crossing the Channel and the UK should offer more safe and legal alternatives.
Tim Naor Hilton, the chief executive of Refugee Action, said: “Laws criminalising people who arrive here to claim asylum are unconscionable.
“People will continue to risk – and lose – their lives off our coast unless the government scraps its anti-refugee laws and creates new safe routes to travel to the UK to claim asylum.”
Ravishaan Rahel Muthiah, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said the laws were “designed to fuel hatred and score headlines”.
“No one should be criminalised for the act of seeking sanctuary,” he added. “If this government were actually interested in creating a fair, compassionate and functioning asylum system, they would introduce safe routes to protection here.”
