Dealing with actual or alleged illegal working

Employers may need to deal with actual or alleged illegal working in the course of their business.

This issue may arise:

•
at the time an employee is identified by the employer as a person who may not have the right to work in the UK, or
•
when an employer is issued with a civil penalty notice or becomes the subject of criminal proceedings relating to an illegal working offence

Dealing with an employee who does not have the right to work in the UK

Employers should ensure they have policies and procedures in place to minimise the potential of employing a person who does not have the right to work in the UK. However, doing so cannot completely mitigate the risk of illegal working occurring, eg where an employee ceases to have the right to work (perhaps due to a change in their personal circumstances) or where compliance systems fail.

Where an employer becomes aware that an employee potentially does not have

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Immigration News

Home Office appoints John Tuckett as Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration

The Home Office has announced the appointment of John Tuckett as the new Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), following pre-appointment scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee earlier in 2025. Tuckett replaces David Bolt, who has served as interim ICIBI since June 2024. The ICIBI monitors and reports on the efficiency and effectiveness of the UK's border, immigration and citizenship system, making recommendations directly to the Home Secretary. The government is also recruiting a new Immigration Services Commissioner to replace Tuckett in that role, with the appointment expected to be confirmed in due course.

Conservatives announce plans to withdraw from the ECHR and abolish the Immigration Tribunal

The leader of the Conservative party, Kemi Badenoch MP, announced at the party conference on 5 October 2025 that the next Conservative election manifesto will contain a commitment to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998. This follows the completion of an advice document by the Shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson, which looked at whether remaining signed up to the Convention would constrain a future Conservative government in the following areas: making a ‘stringent’ border policy possible; protecting soldiers from ‘vexatious’ legal claims, especially over Northern Ireland and overseas operations; placing blanket restrictions on foreign nationals in terms of social housing and benefits; setting mandatory sentences for serious crimes and banning ‘disruptive’ protests; and delivering infrastructure and energy projects without extensive human rights and climate-based litigation. In his separate address to the conference, the Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp MP, asserted that current judicial interpretations of the ECHR impede effective border control and the deportation of foreign offenders. He also announced that, following withdrawal, the party proposed to legislate for a Borders plan that would prohibit all asylum and other claims made by those entering the UK unlawfully, including those arriving by small boats. Such individuals would be removed immediately to their country of origin, or, where that is not possible, to a designated safe third country such as Rwanda, within one week of arrival.

Institute for Government analyses Starmer's proposals to reinterpret ECHR in immigration cases

The Institute for Government has analysed Prime Minister Keir Starmer's proposal to change how UK courts interpret the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and other international treaties in immigration cases. The former Treasury Solicitor, Sir Jonathan Jones examines how Parliament could pass legislation setting out specific interpretations of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR, while the government maintains its commitment to remaining within the Convention. The analysis notes that claimants could still apply to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which would not be bound by UK domestic legislation.

Sudden end of right of appeal for Article 8 upgrade and long residence refusals

The Home Office has updated it's 'Rights of Appeal caseworker guidance' to say that the Home Office will no longer be issuing appealable refusal decisions where a person already has leave to remain in the UK. Previously the guidance still provided for a right of appeal if the person did not already have leave to remain on human rights grounds. A common scenario where this arose was appeals against a refusal on the ten-year long residence settlement route. Now if a person already holds any form of leave to remain (except 3C leave), the Home Office will not issue an appealable refusal decision and the only remedy would be judicial review, unless the refusal attracts a right of administrative review (which would not usually arise for human rights applications).