Migrants are going missing before their asylum claim has been processed. (Image: Getty)

Almost 1,000 migrants on average per year go missing before their asylum claim has been processed, a new investigation has found. Data shows that 4,838 migrants have absconded from the UK asylum system over the past six years, with 3,158 still unaccounted for as of January.

An investigation from The Sun gathered data, which covers the period January 2020 to December 2025, from the UK Immigration Enforcement’s live operational database via a Freedom of Information request. The figures include migrants who escaped from ports or immigration detention, as well as those on immigration bail who stopped complying with reporting requirements. Individuals are officially recorded as absconders after attempts to contact them have been exhausted. At that point, the Government cannot establish whether they remain undetected in Britain or have left the country.

Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more

I would like to receive emails from the Daily Express featuring our latest products, services, offers, and promotions from across the Reach Plc family.

Invalid email

You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.

Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, told The Sun: “The majority of asylum claims come from illegal immigrants. We have no idea who these people are when they enter our country illegally and we don’t even know where thousands of them are.

“Illegal immigration is putting the British public in danger. We must leave the ECHR and any other obligation that gets in the way so we can deport all illegal immigrants and foreign criminals.

“We must double the funding for Immigration Enforcement so they have the resources they need to track down and remove those with no right to be here. It is a shame Andy Burnham and Shabana Mahmood are too weak to do this.”

Chris Philp says illegal immigration is “putting the British public in danger”. (Image: Getty)

According to the Home Office, migrants who fail to comply with the asylum process face having their claim withdrawn. However, they are able to later resurface and make a fresh claim on human rights grounds

Data shows that just over 80,000 people living illegally in the UK have been removed since Labour came to power in 2024. Around 20,000 were forced removals while roughly 60,000 left the UK under voluntary departures.

The government acknowledged in June that some asylum seekers had disappeared but insisted officials knew the whereabouts of the “vast majority”. Meanwhile, the Public Accounts Committee has said the system used to monitor migrants requires a “complete overhaul”.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Individuals who have no legal basis to remain in the UK should be deported and we are committed to making this happen.

Migrants who fail to comply with the asylum process face having their claim withdrawn. (Image: Getty)

“We have a dedicated tracing capability in the Home Office who work with the police and other enforcement agencies to trace those who abscond.

“The number of absconders is 70 per cent lower than the peak year under the previous government. But we must go further.

“The Home Secretary will double the Immigration Enforcement budget to support tens of thousands more raids, arrests and deportations of those here illegally.”

Exemptions remain in place for individuals who wear face coverings for legitimate purposes (Image: Getty Images)

Repeated violations could result in indefinite bans from the city centre, while criminal behaviour orders may be imposed on those who persistently ignore the balaclava restrictions.

The measures enable police and council officers to demand individuals remove face coverings where their identity is being hidden to facilitate criminal activity or anti-social conduct, Nottinghamshire Police confirmed.

The measures enable police and council officers to demand individuals remove face coverings where their identity is being hidden to facilitate criminal activity or anti-social conduct (Image: Getty Images)

“That is why we are taking decisive action and becoming one of the first cities in the country to introduce a restriction of this kind.”

The measure does not constitute a blanket prohibition on face coverings; rather, officers are reportedly focusing on “crime, anti-social behaviour or intimidating conduct”.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage called for full face coverings, including those worn for religious reasons, to be outlawed in public spaces, following gatherings of masked anti-illegal migrant protesters in Dover earlier this month.

Repeated violations could result in indefinite bans from the city centre (Image: Getty)

In 2024, Wolverhampton City Council introduced regulations governing face coverings, also under a public spaces protection order, aimed at combating anti-social behaviour in the city centre.

The order grants West Midlands Police the authority to request individuals remove face coverings if they have no reasonable grounds to wear them and are using them deliberately to conceal their identity.

Nottingham Balaclava Ban Starts Today as Police Gain Power to Issue £70 Fines

A new set of face-covering restrictions has come into force in Nottingham, giving police and authorised council officers additional powers to tackle the use of balaclavas and other face coverings in the city centre.

The measures began on Tuesday 15 September 2026 and form part of a Public Spaces Protection Order introduced following concerns about intimidation, anti-social behaviour and criminal activity involving people whose identities are concealed. Officers can require someone to remove a face covering when they reasonably believe it is being used to conceal the person’s identity for the purpose of committing a crime or engaging in anti-social behaviour.

Those who refuse to comply can receive an on-the-spot £70 fine. Police and council officers can also confiscate face coverings, while some offenders may be referred to an Immediate Justice Programme involving community work.

The new rules have attracted considerable attention because Nottingham is among the first UK cities to introduce measures specifically targeting face coverings in this way.

However, officials have stressed that the policy is not a blanket ban on wearing a balaclava or other face covering.

What the new rules actually do

The distinction is important.

The new restrictions do not make it automatically illegal for every person to wear a face covering in Nottingham city centre.

Instead, officers have powers to intervene when they believe a face covering is being used to conceal someone’s identity in connection with crime or anti-social behaviour. The measures also include exemptions for legitimate circumstances, including religious, medical, health and occupational reasons.

The policy therefore gives officers an additional enforcement tool rather than simply outlawing all face coverings.

Someone wearing a face covering for work or religious reasons is treated differently from someone whose identity is allegedly being concealed while committing an offence.

The practical effect will depend heavily on how officers use these powers and how individual incidents are assessed.

Why Nottingham introduced the restrictions

Nottinghamshire Police has linked the new measures to a series of incidents involving people wearing balaclavas and other face coverings.

Police evidence identified more than 180 city-centre incidents involving face coverings or balaclavas between June 2025 and June 2026. Authorities say the issue includes criminal behaviour, intimidation and anti-social conduct.

Superintendent Chris Pearson, Nottingham’s city commander, has said the police intend to use the new powers against people suspected of using face coverings to conceal their identities while engaging in criminal or anti-social behaviour.

The policy was developed as part of the wider Operation Reclaim initiative.

For police, the central argument is that anonymity can make it harder to identify people involved in offences.

A face covering can obviously make identification more difficult, particularly when combined with CCTV footage and other evidence. The new powers are intended to remove that particular obstacle in situations where officers believe criminality or anti-social behaviour is involved.

A public consultation preceded the ban

The restrictions did not appear without consultation.

Nottingham City Council sought public views before introducing the measures. More than 2,200 people responded to the consultation, and more than 90 per cent supported action relating to face coverings, according to reports on the policy.

That result was subsequently cited by supporters of the scheme as evidence that many residents and businesses wanted stronger action.

However, consultation results should be interpreted carefully.

People who choose to respond to consultations are not necessarily statistically representative of the entire population. A consultation measures the views expressed by respondents; it does not automatically establish the opinion of every resident.

Nevertheless, the high level of support among respondents provided political and local-government backing for introducing the restrictions.

The £70 fine

One of the most visible aspects of the new policy is the £70 fixed penalty.

The fine is intended to provide an immediate consequence for people who refuse to comply with an officer’s direction under the order.

But the financial penalty is only one part of the enforcement framework.

Face coverings can also be confiscated, and individuals may be referred to Nottingham’s Immediate Justice Programme. That programme can involve visible community work intended to make offenders contribute directly to the communities affected by their behaviour.

For persistent non-compliance, authorities have additional legal options.

A Criminal Behaviour Order can potentially restrict an individual’s access to the city centre, depending on the circumstances and the legal process involved.

This means that the new policy operates as part of a broader enforcement strategy rather than relying exclusively on fines.

Why balaclavas have become a political issue

Balaclavas have increasingly become associated with debates about crime, youth anti-social behaviour and public disorder.

The garment itself, however, is not inherently connected to criminal activity. People wear face coverings for many ordinary reasons, including cold weather, work requirements, health concerns and religious observance.

The controversy arises when the same type of clothing is used deliberately to hide a person’s identity during criminal or intimidating behaviour.

That distinction is at the centre of Nottingham’s policy.

Officials are therefore attempting to target the circumstances in which the face covering is being used rather than treating the clothing itself as evidence of criminality.

Concerns about police discretion

The introduction of additional police powers also raises questions about how they will be applied.

Whenever officers receive discretionary powers, clear guidelines and consistent enforcement become important.

Two people wearing similar face coverings could potentially be treated differently depending on the surrounding circumstances. One might have a legitimate reason for covering their face, while another could be suspected of using the covering to conceal their identity during criminal behaviour.

The evidence available to officers will therefore be important.

Authorities have emphasised that the restrictions are aimed at crime, anti-social behaviour and intimidation rather than ordinary members of the public simply wearing face coverings.

The effectiveness of the policy will ultimately depend on whether that distinction remains clear in practice.

Nottingham is part of a wider national debate

The timing of Nottingham’s restrictions is significant because the UK is experiencing a broader debate about face coverings and public order.

Recent demonstrations in other parts of the country have involved groups of people wearing balaclavas and other clothing that concealed their identities. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has urged police forces to make greater use of available powers against masked protesters when legal conditions are met.

The national discussion has therefore extended beyond Nottingham’s concerns about city-centre anti-social behaviour.

It now includes questions about protests, public order and the balance between individual freedom and the ability of police to identify people suspected of offences.

However, the Nottingham rules and the powers available during protests are not identical. Different legal frameworks apply in different circumstances.

What happens if the rules are challenged?

As with any new enforcement measure, the coming months will provide an opportunity to assess how the policy works.

Authorities can examine the number of incidents involving face coverings, the number of directions issued, fines imposed, confiscations and subsequent criminal investigations.

They can also monitor whether reported anti-social behaviour changes after implementation.

Such information will be more useful than assumptions about the policy’s impact.

If incidents decrease, supporters may argue that the restrictions are acting as a deterrent. If little changes, questions could arise about whether the powers address the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour.

There may also be debate about whether the policy creates unintended consequences.

A question of public safety and individual freedom

The underlying issue is a familiar one in democratic societies.

Governments and police forces have responsibilities to protect people from crime and intimidation. At the same time, individuals have legitimate reasons for dressing in ways that conceal part or all of their faces.

Nottingham’s approach attempts to distinguish between those two situations.

The policy does not simply say that a balaclava is illegal. Instead, it gives officers powers where they believe the face covering is being used to conceal identity for criminal or anti-social purposes, while recognising legitimate exemptions.

That distinction will be particularly important in determining how the policy is perceived.

The test will be what happens next

For Nottingham residents, the most important question is no longer whether the restrictions will be introduced. They are now in force.

The next stage is to see how they operate on the streets.

Police will have to determine when intervention is justified. Council officers will need to apply the rules consistently. Residents and businesses will judge whether they feel safer. And authorities will eventually have to assess whether the measures have produced measurable changes in crime and anti-social behaviour.

The £70 fine has attracted the most attention, but the wider significance of the policy lies in the additional powers now available to enforcement officers.

Nottingham has effectively created a new framework for dealing with face coverings when they are linked to suspected criminality or anti-social conduct.

Whether that framework becomes a model for other British cities will depend on its implementation and results.

For now, the message from Nottinghamshire Police is clear: face coverings used to conceal identities during suspected criminal or anti-social behaviour will attract greater scrutiny in the city centre.

At the same time, legitimate face coverings remain protected under the stated exemptions.

The debate is therefore unlikely to end with the introduction of the £70 fine. Instead, the coming months will show whether Nottingham’s new approach can reduce the problems it was designed to address while maintaining a clear distinction between legitimate personal freedoms and conduct that authorities have grounds to treat as unlawful or anti-social.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.