Immigration analysis: The Home Office operated a policy whereby officers were to search all migrants arriving by small boat to the UK, to seize and retain their phones without allowing access to the contents, and to download all data under a secret, blanket policy until November 2020. This was conceded by the defendant to be unlawful. The demand for a PIN on threat of a spurious criminal penalty was also conceded to be unlawful. The claimants successfully argued that the defendant’s actions were not only unlawful by reason of the policy but also because the Home Office were acting unlawfully by going beyond the legislative power by exceeding the limits set out in section 48 of the Immigration Act 2016 (IA 2016) (upon which it relied for the seizure and retention of phones) ,which authorises the search of premises and the subsequent seizure of items found on the premises, as distinct from a person. Moreover, not only was the seizure and retention of the devices unlawful under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 but the subsequent extraction, retention and dissemination of the data from the mobile phones was unlawful under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). This case potentially affects thousands of migrants who arrived in the UK by small boat and whose phones were seized, whose data was downloaded, retained and who were prevented from copying numbers to contact loved ones after crossing the Channel safely. The approach taken to the Data Protection claims also have relevance more broadly. Written by Bernadette Smith, barrister at 1MCB Chambers and Julianne Kerr Morrison, barrister at Monkton Chambers.