December 23, 2025
A High Court judge has ordered the Home Secretary to allow a man of Jamaican heritage to return to Britain after he was blocked from boarding a flight
A High Court judge has ordered the Home Secretary to allow a long‑term UK resident to return to Britain after he was blocked from boarding a flight and left stranded overseas when his eVisa was abruptly cancelled. The case has intensified warnings from lawyers and campaigners that the UK is sleepwalking into a “Digital Windrush” scandal, driven by opaque immigration technology.
The man, who had lived in the UK for years with lawful status, only discovered he had been effectively exiled when airline staff informed him that the Home Office had issued a “do not board” instruction. His digital immigration record, the sole proof of his right to live in Britain—had been deleted without notice, explanation, or any formal legal process.
In a strongly worded judgment, the Mr. Justice Constable ruled that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully. No deprivation procedure had been initiated, no reasons had been given, and no lawful authority existed for excluding him from the country he called home. The judge ordered that he be permitted to return immediately.
Immigration specialists say the case exposes a growing pattern: digital systems such as eVisas, automated status checks, and airline instructions are increasingly being used to exert immigration control outside the safeguards Parliament intended. Unlike traditional decisions, these digital exclusions often occur silently, without appeal rights, and without any paper trail.
Campaigners warn that the shift to digital‑only status risks repeating the systemic failures of the Windrush scandal, but with far less visibility. Instead of lost letters, individuals can now be locked out of their rights by a single database entry. Many will not realise anything is wrong until they are denied travel, employment, housing, or healthcare.
The Home Office maintains that the transition to eVisas will modernise the system. But critics argue that the lack of transparency and oversight creates fertile ground for wrongful exclusion, administrative error, and unchecked executive power.
With millions now dependent on digital status to prove their right to live and work in the UK, this ruling raises urgent questions about how many others may have been quietly shut out of their lives without ever receiving a formal decision. As the government accelerates its digital identity and border modernisation programmes, the judgment stands as a stark warning: the architecture for a new national scandal is already in place, and the consequences could be devastating.
