Suspended criminal sentences of 12 months mean mandatory UK visa refusals

26 March 2026

From 26 March 2026, anyone who has received a sentence of at least 12 months, whether that’s in the UK or abroad, even if it’s a suspended sentence, can expect a mandatory refusal or cancellation of a UK visa, regardless of how long ago the crime took place.

This was already the case for custodial sentences but the same will now apply to suspended sentences, which has the unusual effect of putting someone who has served a custodial sentence of 11 months (which is a discretionary ground of refusal) in a better position than someone who has completed a suspended sentence of 12 months which was never activated (which is now a mandatory ground of refusal).

By removing provisions that previously excluded suspended sentences from counting as a period of imprisonment for the purposes of defining a foreign criminal, anyone with a suspended sentence of a year now also faces a mandatory requirement that the Home Secretary removes them from the UK.

This may apply in instances when someone is applying to come to the UK, renew a visa or apply for indefinite leave to remain or for citizenship.

Unveiling this change, which has gone largely unreported among some of the significant immigration proposals she has recently made, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: “coming to the UK from overseas is a privilege, not a right. Any foreign national with a history of crime and violence is not welcome. If you pose a risk to our country, you will be refused entry or removed.” Yet there are many reasons why someone may have received a non-custodial sentence of a year or over, such as driving offences or tax avoidance.

By removing provisions that previously excluded suspended sentences from counting as a period of imprisonment for the Home Office definition of a “foreign national offender”, anyone with a suspended sentence of a year or longer is now automatically liable for deportation, which is a framework for excluding people from the UK, often forcefully, that is significantly more draconian than the threat of mere administrative removal.

Suitability changes to the UK’s immigration rules mean harsher rules for family and private life visas.

Today’s change to UK Immigration Rules follows last November’s amendment of the “suitability” rules – the framework for refusing visa applications and cancelling those already granted, which considerably tightened them for applications by family members such as children, parents, spouses and partners. Previously, someone sentenced to between 12 months and four years for a criminal offence was generally able to join their family in the UK as long as 10 years have passed since.

Since November any conviction with a prison sentence of 12 months or more attracts a mandatory refusal for those wishing to join loved ones in the UK, no matter where in the world the offence occurred or how long has elapsed since the end of their sentence.

Alex Piletska has written in more detail about November’s changes here.

From today, Home Office Guidance has changed in line with the most recent Statement of Changes of Immigration Rules so that even if an offence only warranted a suspended sentence, this would still mean a lifetime ban from the UK.

There is no transitionary provision to protect those already in the UK.  This change in the suitability rules will affect existing relationships, including people already in the UK as a spouse or parent who haven’t reached settlement yet, even when the conviction in question is historic and even if they were granted their visa in full knowledge of that conviction.

Many who may be four years into a five-year spouse visa and just months away from settling with their partner now face the prospect of being torn apart from their loved one when they apply to settle.

Are there any exceptions to this UK visa ban for those with criminal sentences of 12 months or over?

There will be exceptions where a conviction abroad is for something that would not be criminalised in the UK – for example – a criminal sentence for homosexuality or membership of a trade union. In those cases, the convictions can be disregarded, though this may not be as helpful as it may appear — these types of convictions by despotic regimes very rarely state the actual reason for the conviction on its face, so a conviction for homosexuality may be presented as a conviction for “obscenity and public disorder” or something equally misleadingly dramatic.

There may also be scope for exceptions to be made in cases for some applicants, such as those who aren’t subject to a deportation order or classed as persistent offenders, if they have a very strong Article 8 private or family life argument. However at present we have little indication of how such cases would be treated by the Home Office or, more likely, a judge on appeal. Such cases would be wholly outside the Immigration Rules and would invariably be very complex, expensive, with uncertain prospects. The government has also hinted that it wants to make further changes to how judges decide Article 8 cases and seem keen to limit judicial independence in this area.

Proposals for ‘Earned Settlement’ may involve a ‘clean criminal record’.

The backdrop to this change is a major overhaul of the current, relatively predictable five‑year route to settlement in the UK. Reforms set to be announced starting from Autumn 2026 have major implications for how long immigrants must continue to apply for new visas, stay sponsored by an employee or be dependant on a family member to qualify for settlement. There are also certain requirements that may have to be met, such as having paid taxes and not having government debt.

Among the proposals is a suggestion by the Home Secretary that those who endeavour to settle here will have to possess a “clean criminal record”. We do not yet know what this will mean in practice.