Permission refused in discrimination challenge to immigration raids

A charity has been refused permission to challenge “Operation Tornado” on the grounds that it has an indirectly discriminatory effect on people with the protected characteristic of disability, race (colour) and sex. “Operation Tornado” is what the government has named the increase in immigration raids since the Labour government was elected in July 2024. The case is R (Migrants’ Rights Network) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 39 (Admin).

The main targets of the raids have been:

car washes, nail bars and beauty salons (continuing from July 2024); supermarkets/convenience stores and construction sites (continuing from November or December 2024); restaurants, takeaways and cafés (continuing from January 2025 – announced on 10 February 2025; delivery riders (continuing from 20 July 2025 – announced on 9 August 2025); and fast food drivers (continuing from 28 October 2025).

In addition to the argument that there had been an indiscriminatory effect on certain groups, the claimant also argued that there had been a failure to comply with the public sector equality duty at section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. However, the court considered that the assessments that already existed before the increase in raids were sufficient for this duty to be discharged, stating:

The intensification involved an increase in the resources allocated to enforcement activity, but did not fundamentally change the nature of the impacts on disabled persons or on those sharing a particular nationality/race or sex. All that happened in July 2024 was that increased resources were allocated to enforcement activity. Although particular sectors were identified, this was done on the same basis as identified in the Strategy, i.e. on the basis of intelligence that these sectors attracted large numbers of persons who did not have the right to work. In those circumstances, I do not consider it arguable that the policy or practice adopted in July 2024, or the focus on new sectors in July and October 2025, raised new equality considerations that called for separate assessment.

On the argument that the policy or practice gave rise to a “particular disadvantage” to the identified groups, the court said that even if certain groups were disproportionately represented in the targeted sectors, the increase in raids was justified as being proportionate to the legitimate aim of immigration control.

Permission was therefore refused on both grounds.