STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is being updated for the coming into force of section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, and related guidance and Codes of Practice. This measure will extend the right to work regime to the provision of work and services beyond the standard employment relationship, including to worker contracts, individual sub-contractors and online matching services. Liability will also be extended in relation to relationships along a contractual chain and where substitution is allowed. There are separate prescribed requirements which will create a statutory excuse for some of these relationships. For more details, see Practice Notes: Illegal working: who must be checked and Illegal working—civil and criminal sanctions. This Practice Note provides an overview of the main criminal offences relating to illegal working and discusses practical aspects of dealing with a criminal investigation and prosecution. For information on the civil penalty regime relating to illegal working, see Practice Note: Illegal working: dealing with a civil penalty. This Practice Note covers

STOP PRESS: This Practice Note is being updated for the coming into force of section 48 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, and related guidance and Codes of Practice. This measure will extend the right to work regime to the provision of work and services beyond the standard employment relationship, including to worker contracts, individual sub-contractors and online matching services. Liability will also be extended in relation to relationships along a contractual chain and where substitution is allowed. There are separate prescribed requirements which will create a statutory excuse for some of these relationships. For more details, see Practice Notes: Illegal working: who must be checked and Illegal working—civil and criminal sanctions. An employer who is found to have employed a person unlawfully in the UK may be liable to civil penalties and/or criminal sanctions. For further information, see Practice Notes: Illegal working: dealing with a civil penalty and Illegal working: dealing with a criminal allegation. In addition to civil penalties

This Practice Note considers the statutory provisions in relation to right to work checks and specifically the categories of individual who must be checked in order to identify that they have the right to work in the UK. Sections 15 to 24 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006) impose a system of civil and criminal penalties for employers who employ individuals illegally in the UK. The civil penalty can be up to £45,000 per employee for a first offence or up to £60,000 per employee for repeat offences. For further information, see Practice Notes: • Illegal workers—civil and criminal sanctions • Illegal working: dealing with a civil penalty • Illegal working: dealing with a criminal allegation In addition to civil penalties and criminal sanctions, those with a sponsor licence may have their licence revoked where illegal working has been proven. There are also cooling-off periods for licence re-application, where a civil penalty has been issued against a sponsor whose licence has been revoked (or where certain personnel related to

This Practice Note examines the civil and criminal sanctions which apply to the employment of illegal workers. It explains the extension of the regime from 1 October 2026 to specified worker, subcontracting, online matching and substitution arrangements. It looks at the statutory excuse and the penalties in respect of the civil penalty. It considers the criminal offences (by employers and workers) and the relevant Codes of Practice in respect of the civil penalty scheme and avoiding discrimination. It discusses the position for employment commencing before 29 February 2008. Finally it looks at the European Sanctions Directive. A system of civil penalties for employers who employ illegal workers exists for employment commencing on or after 29 February 2008 under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (IANA 2006). IANA 2006 also creates a criminal offence of employing an illegal worker in the circumstances described below. A person is an illegal worker if they are a person aged 16 or over who requires leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971 (IA 1971), and:

A bar to the enforcement of an otherwise enforceable contract as the courts cannot compel one party to complete an immoral or illegal act even if that act would not have been illegal at the time of contracting.

Illegality in a judicial review context A public body is not permitted to act beyond the scope of its powers and duties, which may be defined by reference to applicable legislation, whether domestic or European (including EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights). In other words, a public body is not entitled to act without jurisdiction, or fail to act when it is required to do so; such actions are considered to be illegal in a judicial review context. An anachronistic distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law, which restricted the availability of judicial review in certain circumstances, was abolished by the House of Lords in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission. In Council of the Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, at para [410] Lord Diplock stated: ‘By “illegality” as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision-maker must

Scope of this Practice Note There is no civil cause of action per se of ‘illegality’. However, issues of illegality can arise in the context of a civil dispute, most commonly by way of a defence raised in response to a claim. For example: • a claim for breach of contract may be met with a defence that formation or performance of the contract is or would be illegal • similarly a claim for restitution may likewise be met with a defence based on the alleged illegality of the underlying transaction At common law, an early starting point is the maxim ‘ex turpi causa non oritur action’: no cause of action arises from illegal or flagrantly immoral acts, ie if the claimant’s conduct itself is in some way illegal or immoral, as considered by Lord Mansfield in Holman v Johnson: ‘If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the court says he has no right to

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Queen’s Bench Division has dismissed an appeal against a master’s decision to strike out, for illegality, the appellant’s claim seeking damages from the respondents for malicious prosecution when they failed to disclose, after he was charged and tried for arson, that they had asked him to set fire to two expensive cars which they owned.

The Illinois Supreme Court has unveiled a comprehensive policy governing the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in its court system. This policy, stemming from recommendations by the Illinois Judicial Conference Task Force on AI, authorises the use of AI technologies by legal professionals and court staff, provided they adhere to existing legal and ethical standards. The Court emphasises that whilst current rules are deemed adequate for now, they will be subject to regular reassessment as AI technology evolves. The policy underscores individual accountability for AI-generated content in court proceedings and promotes ongoing education on emerging technologies to ensure equitable access to justice. This measured approach aims to balance the potential benefits of AI with the imperative to maintain public trust in the judiciary.

An asset which cannot be readily converted to cash eg property.

HMRC has announced that Illumina Cambridge Limited has paid a £7.4 million compound settlement as an alternative to criminal prosecution for breaches of the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/855. Between July 2022 and January 2023, the company breached regulation 25(1) through its involvement in the supply of sanctioned goods from one overseas company within its corporate group to another for export to Russia and other destinations. Illumina voluntarily disclosed the breaches, cooperated fully with HMRC’s investigation and took remedial action, including ceasing all business involving Russia. HMRC states that the case demonstrates how sanctions breaches can arise when UK businesses are involved in overseas supply chains that result in sanctioned goods being supplied indirectly to Russia, even where no goods are exported from the UK.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the cancellation of the investigation on 3 January 2020 after the abandonment of the transaction; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline UK merger investigation into the anticipated acquisition by Ilumina Inc, of Pacific Biosciences of California Inc. The transaction involves horizontal overlap in the market for DNA sequencing systems, which are used to study genetic variations in humans and other species for purposes such as advanced disease research and drug development. Latest developments On 2 January 2020, Illumnia Inc and Pacific Biosciences announced that they had decided not to continue with the transaction because of the length regulatory approval process the transaction had already been subject to and the continued uncertainty of the ultimate outcome. Consequently, the CMA formally cancelled its phase 2 investigation on 3 January 2020. The CMA’s phase 2 deadline was 5 February 2020. Parties • Illumina Inc (Ilumina), headquartered in San Diego, California, is a US-based global supplier of DNA sequencing systems