More than 70 small boat migrants have landed a taxpayer-funded windfall after the High Court ruled the Home Office acted unlawfully by seizing their mobile phones on arrival in Britain.
The controversial policy, introduced during a surge in Channel crossings in 2020, saw asylum seekers searched and their mobiles and SIM cards confiscated, with data in many cases said to have been fully downloaded.
Devices were often allegedly held for three months or longer, and some were never returned.
Judges later found the approach breached the European Convention on Human Rights, opening the door to compensation claims that could ultimately cost millions.
So far, 32 asylum seekers have received payouts totalling £210,800 – the equivalent of £6,587.50 each.
A further 41 cases remain unresolved. If they are settled at the same rate, the bill will rise to £480,887.
At the time of the ruling, it was reported that 1,323 migrants could potentially seek damages, fuelling fears the final cost could reach as high as £8million.
A Freedom of Information response revealed the Home Office has already spent £735,000 contesting the case, according to The Sun.
More than 70 small boat migrants have landed a taxpayer-funded windfall after the High Court ruled the Home Office acted unlawfully by seizing their mobile phones on arrival in Britain
Migrants from nations including Vietnam, Iran and Eritrea sit next to a beach after being rescued by the RNLI in the English Channel, following their departure from northern France, in Dungeness, Britain, August 4, 2021
It confirmed that of the £210,800 paid out, £163,900 accounted for ‘pure compensation costs’, while a further £46,900 was paid under Calderbank offers – confidential ‘without prejudice’ agreements – covering both compensation and legal costs without distinction.
The legal battle stems from a judicial review launched in November 2020 by three asylum seekers, identified only as HM, MA and KH.
The High Court heard that nearly 2,000 phones were taken between April and November 2020 under what was described as a blanket policy.
Until July 2020, all seized devices and SIM cards were subjected to full data downloads.
After that date, downloads were limited to cases where a ‘person of interest’ had been identified on a boat.
In January 2022, the case came before the High Court, with judgment handed down two months later.
Lord Justice Edis said then-Home Secretary Priti Patel accepted that the ‘blanket seizure policy… was not in accordance with the law’.
The judges found that confiscating phones interfered with migrants’ rights to family and private life under the ECHR and that phones and PINs were taken ‘without any lawful authority’.
In their written order in October 2022, the judges ruled: ‘The Mobile Phone Policy was unlawful because it was unpublished.’
They added: ‘Searches and/or seizures were unlawful because they operated in a blanket way.’
The court also identified a ‘failure of governance’ surrounding the unpublished policy.
Evidence presented during proceedings included claims that asylum seekers were ‘bullied’ into handing over passcodes, allowing personal data to be extracted and added to an intelligence system known as Project Sunshine.
Following the ruling, the court ordered the Home Office, now led by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, to ‘use all reasonable endeavours’ to contact migrants whose phones had been seized, advising them: ‘If you have not taken legal advice on your position, you are strongly advised to do so now.’
The first wave of compensation payments has sparked outrage among critics.
Reform MP Robert Jenrick said: ‘This is further proof, as if it were needed, of how rulings made by European judges are working against the British people. It is a farce and total waste of taxpayers’ money.
‘A Reform government will stop this nonsense by getting rid of the rule of European judges.’
Should taxpayers have to pay compensation to migrants after unlawful phone seizures by the Home Office?
So far, 32 asylum seekers have received payouts totalling £210,800 – the equivalent of £6,587.50 each
The Home Office had defended the policy as a necessary tool to gather intelligence on smuggling gangs organising Channel crossings
Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said: ‘This beggars belief. The taxpayer should not be made to hand over huge sums to people who have made their way here illegally to break into the country.
‘If granted permission, they should instead be required to repay the huge costs of maintaining them while their applications are processed.’
William Yarwood, of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: ‘It is utterly perverse that people who broke into the country are now being handed these cheques courtesy of British taxpayers.
‘Instead of deterring illegal entry, the system has ended up financially rewarding it.
‘Ministers must slam the door on further payouts and ensure the law is enforced robustly.
‘The priority should be stopping the boats and detaining and deporting all illegal migrants.’
The migrants who brought the original challenge were represented by law firms Gold Jennings and Deighton Pierce Glynn.
Speaking after the case, Daniel Carey, of Deighton Pierce Glynn, said: ‘Nearly 2,000 phones were taken from migrants in an indiscriminate blanket policy that the High Court has now found to be unlawful on multiple fronts.
‘All of this had real impacts on very vulnerable people, who lost touch with their families and couldn’t get their asylum documentation, while the phones languished on a shelf for many months, many which now cannot be returned.’
The Home Office had defended the policy as a necessary tool to gather intelligence on smuggling gangs organising Channel crossings.
In response to the controversy, ministers have since passed legislation making it lawful to seize migrants’ phones and electronic devices.
Mobile phone seizures resumed last month at Manston processing centre in Kent as part of a renewed crackdown on people-smuggling networks.
Announcing the measures, Border Security and Asylum Minister Alex Norris said: ‘We are implementing robust new laws with powerful offences to intercept, disrupt and dismantle vile gangs and cut off their supply chains.’
The Daily Mail has approached the Home Office for comment.