Published: 11 August 2025 | The English Chronicle Desk
The Labour government has announced a significant expansion of the controversial “deport now, appeal later” scheme, widening its reach to 23 countries as part of a broader crackdown on foreign national offenders. The policy, originally introduced by Baroness Theresa May in 2014 under the Conservative government’s “hostile environment” strategy, allows certain offenders to be deported before their appeals are heard, with subsequent legal proceedings taking place from abroad.
Under the expanded framework, offenders whose human rights appeals have been rejected will be removed from the United Kingdom and required to pursue any further legal challenges from their home countries. The list of participating nations has grown from eight to 23, with Angola, Australia, Botswana, Brunei, Bulgaria, Canada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Latvia, Lebanon, Malaysia, Uganda and Zambia joining the existing partners: Finland, Nigeria, Estonia, Albania, Belize, Mauritius, Tanzania and Kosovo. The Home Office has signalled that more countries may be added in the future.
The announcement follows a weekend pledge by the government to deport foreign criminals as soon as they are sentenced. However, when questioned on whether those deported under the new measures would serve prison sentences in their home countries, Victims’ Minister Alex Davies-Jones said outcomes would vary depending on the case and the policies of the receiving nation. “What is important is that they are not staying here in our country,” she told Sky News, stressing that those deported would have “no right to ever return.”
Ms Davies-Jones dismissed concerns that human rights laws could obstruct the removals, insisting that the government’s approach was “watertight.” She emphasised that those from the 23 listed countries would be unable to remain in the UK while appealing their cases.
The “deport now, appeal later” policy has had a turbulent history. Introduced through an amendment to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, it initially facilitated the removal of offenders to countries such as Kenya and Jamaica. In 2017, the Supreme Court curtailed its use after ruling that the practice of forcing appellants to argue their cases from abroad was incompatible with human rights standards. The policy was revived in 2023 by then-home secretary Suella Braverman, who claimed that improved overseas facilities now allowed for fairer remote appeal processes.
The current government has framed the expansion as a key component of its strategy to speed up the removal of foreign offenders. According to Home Office figures, 5,200 foreign national offenders have been removed since July 2024—an increase of 14% compared with the previous year. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper stated, “Those who commit crimes in our country cannot be allowed to manipulate the system, which is why we are restoring control and sending a clear message that our laws must be respected and will be enforced.”
Foreign Secretary David Lammy added that the expansion was part of wider diplomatic efforts to secure more bilateral return agreements. “We are leading diplomatic efforts to increase the number of countries where foreign criminals can be swiftly returned, and if they want to appeal, they can do so safely from their home country. Under this scheme, we’re investing in international partnerships that uphold our security and make our streets safer,” he said.
The policy’s revival and expansion have drawn attention due to past opposition from senior Labour figures. In 2015, Sir Keir Starmer, then a backbench MP, questioned whether such a system was practical or just, noting its potential impact on children and families in cases where deportations were overturned on appeal. The government now argues that the measures are necessary to prevent offenders from “gaming the system” and prolonging their stay in the UK for “months or years” while appeals are processed.
With the new list of 23 countries in place, ministers say the UK is taking decisive steps to ensure that foreign nationals convicted of crimes cannot use lengthy legal proceedings to delay their removal. Critics, however, are likely to continue questioning both the fairness and long-term effectiveness of the approach as it is put into practice.




























































































