Windrush scandal The
Windrush scandal resulted in some British citizens being wrongly deported, along with a further compensation scheme for those affected, and a wider debate on the
Home Office hostile environment policy. The first allegations about the targeting of pre-1973
Caribbean migrants started in 2013. In 2018, the allegations were put to the home secretary in the
House of Commons, and resulted in the resignation of the then home secretary. In 2019, the Home Office admitted to multiple breaches of data protection regulations in the handling of its Windrush compensation scheme. The department sent emails to Windrush migrants which revealed the email address of other Windrush migrants to whom the email was sent. The data breach concerned five different emails, each of which was sent to 100 recipients. In April 2019, the Home Office admitted to revealing 240 personal email addresses of EU citizens applying for settled status in the UK. The email addresses of applicants were incorrectly sent to other applicants to the scheme. In response to these incidents, the Home Office pledged to launch an
independent review of its data protection compliance. In 2019, the
Court of Appeal issued a judgement which criticised the Home Office's handling of immigration cases. The judges stated that the "general approach [by the home secretary,
Sajid Javid] in all earnings discrepancy cases [has been] legally flawed". The judgement relates to the Home Office's interpretation of Section 322(5) of the Immigration Rules. In November 2020, the
Equality and Human Rights Commission, a statutory body that investigates breaches of the
Equality Act 2010 published a report concluding that the Home Office had a "lack of organisation-wide commitment, including by senior leadership, to the importance of equality and the Home Office's obligations under the equality duty placed on government departments". The report noted that the Home Office's pursuit of the "hostile environment" policy from 2012 onwards "accelerated the impact of decades of complex policy and practice based on a history of white and black immigrants being treated differently". Caroline Waters, the interim chair of the EHRC, described the treatment of Windrush immigrants by the Home Office as a "shameful stain on British history".
Aderonke Apata Aderonke Apata, a
Nigerian LGBT activist, made two asylum claims that were both rejected by the Home Office in 2014 and on 1 April 2015 respectively, due to her previously having been in a relationship with a man and having children with that man. In 2014, Apata said that she would send an
explicit video of herself to the Home Office to prove her sexuality.
Use of the Bible for rejecting asylum claims In March 2019, it was reported that in two unrelated cases, the Home Office denied asylum to converted Christians by misrepresenting certain
Bible quotes. In one case, it quoted selected excerpts from the Bible to imply that
Christianity is not more peaceful than
Islam, the asylum-seeker's original religion. In another incident, an
Iranian Christian application for asylum was rejected because her faith was judged as "half-hearted", for she did not believe that Jesus could protect her from the Iranian regime. As criticism grew on social media, the Home Office distanced itself from the decision, though it confirmed the letter was authentic. Home Secretary
Sajid Javid said that it was "totally unacceptable" for his department to quote the Bible to question an Iranian Christian convert's asylum application, and ordered an urgent investigation into what had happened. The treatment of Christian asylum-seekers chimes with other incidents in the past, such as the refusal to grant
visas to the
Archbishop of
Mosul to attend the consecration of the UK's first
Syriac Orthodox Cathedral. In a 2017 study, the Christian
Barnabas Fund found that only 0.2% of all Syrian refugees accepted by the UK were Christians, although Christians accounted for approximately 10% of Syria's pre-war population.
Proscription of Palestine Action under the Terrorism Act 2000 In 2025, the Home Office proscribed the group
Palestine Action under the
Terrorism Act 2000, placing it in the same legal category as organisations such as
al-Qaeda and
Islamic State. The decision was made following organized protests by Palestine Action, including a high-profile breach at
RAF Brize Norton in which activists entered the base and damaged military aircraft, prompting a wider security review by the government. Reports at the time also stated that officials were examining possible links to Iranian support, including the
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which Palestine Action denied. In February 2026, the
High Court ruled that the proscription by the Home Office had been "unlawful" and "disproportionate", and the government subsequently indicated that it would appeal the decision on national security grounds, with the ban remaining in force pending the outcome of that appeal. ==See also==