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.
What are the official statistics on migrant-related crimes in the UK?
Executive summary
Official statistics on “migrant-related crimes” in the UK are fragmented: government datasets publish figures for foreign-national offenders in prisons and for police-recorded crimes and court outcomes, but they do not produce a single, definitive series labelled “migrant crimes” and have known gaps and caveats (for example: prison data exclude immigration detention and nationality is sometimes missing) [1] [2] [3]. Independent analysts and media have used Freedom of Information releases, MoJ and ONS outputs to produce headline claims (for example about sexual offending), but reporting draws on different definitions (foreign national, foreign‑born, asylum seeker, “unknown nationality”) and different denominators, so comparisons are difficult and contested [4] [5] [6].
1. What official statistics exist — and who publishes them?
Three main public producers hold parts of the picture: the Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes crime surveys and police-recorded crime data (and responds to FOI requests about crimes by race/immigration status) but refers offender-level statistics to the Ministry of Justice [3] [7]. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) produces judicial and prison offender statistics and outcome tables; separate GOV.UK releases cover “Statistics on foreign national offenders and the immigration system” [2] [8]. The National Crime Agency (NCA) issues threat assessments on organised immigration crime (small‑boat smuggling, routes and convictions of smugglers), which is a different but related strand of criminality [9].
2. Key official metrics and their limits
Official sources provide counts of foreign nationals in prison, police-recorded offences, and court outcomes by nationality where recorded; they also run Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) victim-focused data [1] [3] [8]. However, the data have well‑documented limitations: nationality can be unrecorded, prison statistics omit immigration detention, there are no routine official statistics linking conviction risk to immigration status or length of residence, and population denominators (who counts as a “migrant”) differ across datasets [1] [2] [3].
3. What the government’s foreign‑national offender statistics say (and don’t say)
GOV.UK publishes a series on foreign-national offenders outlining offending, sentencing and what happens post-conviction, but the department itself warns the systems used to join detailed data face quality issues that affect reliability [2]. The MoJ/related releases give useful counts and offence-type breakdowns for those recorded as foreign nationals in prison and court data but do not answer questions such as whether an offender is newly arrived, an asylum seeker, or long‑resident—details often central to policy arguments [2] [1].
4. How independent analysts and media have used the pieces
Think‑tanks, media and advocacy groups combine ONS, MoJ and FOI data to construct headline rates (for example claims about the share of sexual offences by non‑UK nationals). Those reconstructions can yield striking proportions, yet they frequently rely on different time windows, include “unknown nationality” cases, or use outdated population estimates—factors critics say can exaggerate or misstate comparisons [4] [5] [10]. The Migration Observatory and academic briefings stress that age structure and other confounders are crucial when comparing offence rates [1] [6].
5. What academic and expert synthesis finds
The Migration Observatory and other researchers conclude that the relationship between immigration and crime is mixed and context‑dependent: some studies link local inflows of asylum seekers to modest rises in property crime, while other migrant inflows (e.g., A8 nationals) were associated with falls in property crime; neither group showed clear changes in violent crime in those analyses [6]. The Observatory also emphasises that migrants are typically younger, and age is a major driver of offending risk—so raw comparisons without demographic adjustment are misleading [1] [6].
6. Areas of dispute, misinterpretation and political use
Journalists and fact‑checkers have highlighted corrections and contested claims—examples include misuse of single‑year or local figures as national trends and the use of different definitions to produce alarming percentages [10] [5]. Campaign groups and media outlets sometimes publicise FOI-derived figures (e.g., higher conviction rates for particular offence types among foreign nationals), but those items are disputed because of denominator choice and recording quality [4] [5] [10].
7. Practical takeaway for someone seeking “official statistics”
If you want the most authoritative pieces: consult MoJ/GOV.UK “Statistics on foreign national offenders” and the MoJ crime outcomes and prison data; use ONS for CSEW and police-recorded crime context; and treat NCA reporting for organised immigration crime as complementary intelligence on smuggling rather than general offender rates [2] [3] [9]. Be explicit about definitions (foreign national vs foreign‑born vs asylum seeker) and account for population structure; available sources do not provide a single, definitive “migrant‑crime” rate that answers all policy questions [1] [2].
Limitations and next steps: official datasets exist but are partial and technically complex; to investigate a specific claim (for example “X% of sexual offences were by migrants in year Y”), one needs the exact data source and denominator used — many published claims in 2024–25 rest on differing choices that change the result [4] [5] [10].