Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do arrest and conviction rates per 100,000 compare between UK nationals and non-UK nationals using ONS population estimates?
Executive summary
The available materials show there is no single authoritative dataset in the provided sources that directly reports arrest and conviction rates per 100,000 comparing UK nationals and non‑UK nationals using ONS population estimates; multiple analyses and FOI attempts identify fragments of relevant information but not the exact rate comparison requested [1] [2] [3]. Several recent reports and studies present related signals—claims that foreign nationals face higher arrest incidence in some datasets, while other work controlling for age and sex finds non‑citizens are not overrepresented in custody—pointing to conflicting findings driven by differing denominators, definitions and control variables [4] [5]. To answer the original question definitively would require merging arrest/prosecution conviction counts by nationality with ONS population estimates by nationality and age/sex, a linkage the supplied sources indicate is not presently published in the requested form [3] [6].
1. What claimants say: arrests and convictions look worse for non‑UK nationals—numbers cited loudly
Several analyses and media‑style reports claim that foreign nationals are arrested at higher rates, citing counts and percentages from 2024 and early 2025 that frame the phenomenon as substantial—for example, a report that foreign national arrests numbered 131,000 in the first ten months of 2024 and accounted for 16.1% of arrests [4]. Related commentary highlights specific offence types—drug and fraud—where foreign nationals appear overrepresented among cautions or convictions, and FOI requests and parliamentary briefings have prompted repeated public discussion of nationality breakdowns [5] [7]. These claims rely on arrest counts and share of arrests but do not consistently convert raw counts into rates per 100,000 using ONS denominators, nor always adjust for age and sex differences, which the sources identify as crucial for fair comparisons [5].
2. What official statistics and reviewers actually publish: fragmented coverage and missing denominators
Official publications describe arrests, prosecutions, convictions and migrant population totals, but the provided official sources do not publish the direct rates per 100,000 comparing UK and non‑UK nationals using ONS population estimates; Home Office and Ministry of Justice tables cover arrests and outcomes by ethnicity or offence type separately and ONS publishes migration/population estimates, yet no source among those supplied links those tables to produce the requested per‑100,000 comparison [8] [2] [6]. FOI responses and commentary repeatedly note the absence of a ready‑made crosswalk and point users toward combining datasets [3] [7]. The practical implication is that public debate often uses incomplete metrics—counts or shares—rather than standardized rates, which can distort perceived differences.
3. Scholarly analysis that controls for age/sex tells a different story
At least one analytical study in the material reports that when controlling for age and sex, non‑citizens are underrepresented in the prison population and have lower incarceration rates compared with UK citizens, though they may be overrepresented for certain offence categories like drugs and fraud [5]. This indicates that crude comparisons ignoring demographic structure can be misleading: migrant populations tend to be younger and more male in certain cohorts, which affects exposure to policing and offending risk. The study’s findings caution that apparent overrepresentation in raw arrest numbers does not automatically mean higher per‑capita offending across the whole non‑UK population, and they emphasize the need for demographic controls and offence‑specific breakdowns to interpret rates correctly [5].
4. Contradictions, potential agendas and why results diverge
Reports claiming elevated foreign‑national arrest rates [4] contrast with research showing modest or no overrepresentation after demographic adjustment [5]. These divergences arise from different methodological choices—use of raw counts vs. standardised rates, varying denominators (e.g., resident population vs. registered migrants vs. NI allocations), and selective offence focus [9] [10] [4]. Some advocacy groups and commentators emphasise high counts to argue policy change; other researchers underline demographic controls to caution against simple conclusions. The FOI material and parliamentary analyses also signal institutional limits in available cross‑tabulated data, which can be leveraged rhetorically by actors seeking definitive statements despite statistical gaps [3] [6].
5. What would be required to settle the question and immediate next steps
To produce the requested arrest and conviction rates per 100,000 comparing UK and non‑UK nationals using ONS estimates, data custodians would need to publish or allow linkage of nationality‑specific arrest and conviction counts with ONS population by nationality (and ideally age/sex strata) for the same geographic and temporal scope [3] [6]. Short of that, analysts should compute age‑ and sex‑standardised rates and report offence‑specific ratios to avoid misleading conclusions; the existing sources provide partial inputs but not the integrated output [5] [2]. Policymakers and journalists should avoid citing raw counts alone and instead request or commission the standardized rate tables the evidence base currently lacks [7] [1].