Backlog of foreign criminals could take decades to deport, Conservative analysis warns

A new Conservative analysis of government data shows that deporting all foreign criminals currently in jail would take decades for certain nationalities at current removal rates, illustrating what the brief describes as a growing backlog. The study highlights a spectrum of cases, with particularly slow removal rates among offenders from African, Middle Eastern and Caribbean nations. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp, who compiled the data, said it was “totally unacceptable” that some nationalities are not being deported.

There are 145 Eritrean criminals in jail in Britain, according to the latest data, but in the year to June only two were removed. At that pace, the analysis estimates it would take 73 years to deport the total Eritrean prison population. Similarly, the Iranian jail population in England and Wales stands at 279, with only six deported in the last year, implying a 47-year timeline to remove them all. For Jamaican prisoners, numbering 338, the projection is 15 years to deport all of them, given 23 removals in the year to June; for Somalis, the estimate is 22 years.

The analysis notes that the figures cover only foreign offenders who are in jail and exclude the 19,390 people who are on the streets of Britain and awaiting deportation, for whom nationality data is not broken down. It also points to human rights claims that have blocked deportations in many cases. The analysis comes amid a broader political debate about how Britain should apply human rights law to immigration and deportation decisions.

[Image: ]

The data show that a total of 10,800 foreign nationals are in jail in England and Wales, according to the latest figures. About one in eight prisoners is foreign-born. Although the number of foreign offenders removed in the year to June rose to 5,265 from 4,532 the previous year, the largest increases were among eastern European offenders. Albanians accounted for 1,550 removals, and Romanians for 1,009. A Labour source dismissed the Conservative take, arguing that Labour-led government policy has been to deport more foreign criminals and criticizing the Tories for not delivering on reforms. The source also said Labour would pursue domestic legislation to address migration patterns while maintaining commitments to human rights protections.

The analysis also highlights notable nationalities with long timelines under current removal rates: only one national from the Democratic Republic of Congo was deported in the year to June, suggesting a 68-year horizon to clear that cohort if the pace continues. Syrians in prison numbered 104, with a 35-year removal projection; Moroccans 25 years. The author of the study, Mr. Philp, argued that some foreign criminals have committed or gone on to commit further offenses in the UK after avoiding deportation, including rape and murder.

The Daily Mail reported on a case used in the analysis: Ernesto Elliott, an individual with multiple UK convictions, who avoided deportation to Jamaica in 2020 due to last-minute human rights appeals, later killed a man in a knife attack in June 2021 and was jailed for at least 26 years. While the case is cited to illustrate the potential consequences of deportation delays, the report notes that it is one example among many and does not claim causation in every instance.

On the policy side, Prime Minister and former human rights barrister Sir Keir Starmer and the Attorney General have maintained that Britain will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights, which is enshrined in domestic law through the Human Rights Act. In a separate political moment, Labour’s stance on deportations has been framed by the involvement of figures who supported or opposed past Home Office removals flights to Jamaica, with comments in 2020 from then-Prime Minister and Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood indicating a willingness to pause further deportations in response to opposition from Left-leaning groups.

The Conservative analysis argues that the present legal framework is being weaponized to stall removals and that the public would be better protected by a tighter approach to immigration enforcement, including changes to how Article 8 of the European Convention is applied in immigration cases. A spokesperson for the Home Office emphasized the government’s commitment to deporting foreign national offenders and noted a year-on-year increase in removals in the first year in office, alongside ongoing reviews of how the European Convention framework is applied domestically.

Beyond the immediate numbers, the report points to broader political dynamics. Labour has signaled a continuing insistence on human rights protections while insisting that domestic legislation should address migration and asylum issues differently. Some Labour lawmakers have framed the Conservative focus on deportations as politically motivated, arguing that criminal justice outcomes depend on a broad set of policies, including policing and rehabilitation. The debate has also touched on international cooperation, with the Home Secretary describing partnerships with allies, including the Five Eyes bloc, as part of an effort to intensify returns and reduce abuses of asylum and immigration processes.

The discussion comes as the government has suggested potential visa restrictions tied to non-cooperative states, though analysts caution that such measures would require careful calibration to avoid unintended consequences for legitimate travel and trade. The Home Office noted that it had deported thousands of foreign national offenders in its first year in office and would continue to pursue removal where appropriate, while reviewing domestic applications of Article 8 to ensure that immigration decisions are consistent with public safety considerations.

In the end, the argument over deportation backlogs reflects a broader, ongoing tension within Western democracies: how to balance upholding human rights protections with the imperative to protect public safety. As lawmakers continue to scrutinize the data and challenge each other’s interpretations, the issue is likely to remain a staple of political discourse in both Britain and cross-national discussions about immigration policy and national security.