The Interpol Trap: The Hidden Crisis of Politically Motivated Red Notices in UK Immigration

A former politician fleeing persecution arrives at a UK visa application centre, hoping to find safety in Britain. Their application is swiftly rejected. The reason? An Interpol Red Notice issued by the very regime they are trying to escape. This scenario, far from being exceptional, represents a blind spot in the UK’s immigration system that is destroying the lives of those most in need of protection.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights’ groundbreaking report “Transnational Repression in the UK” has documented how authoritarian states systematically weaponise Interpol’s mechanisms to pursue political opponents across borders, and how the UK’s immigration system inadvertently becomes complicit in this persecution.

Ben Keith, who provided expert evidence to the Committee, highlighted the fundamental misunderstanding that pervades the system.

“If somebody applies for a visa to come to the United Kingdom with a Red Notice against them, you might assume they were a criminal,” he told the Committee. “It might be from Russia; it might be from another state. They might have been a former politician. There is a significant lack of education [in the Civil Service] about trying to analyse whether a Red Notice is in fact genuine.”

This lack of understanding has profound consequences. The Committee found that the presence of a politically motivated Red Notice can lead to an automatic presumption of criminality, resulting in immediate refusal of asylum or visa applications. The irony is stark: those fleeing political persecution are denied sanctuary precisely because their persecutors have successfully gamed the international system designed to combat crime.

The scale of Interpol abuse is wide. The Committee received evidence identifying China, Russia, and Turkey as the most prolific abusers of the system, though witnesses also documented misuse by Algeria, Bahrain, Eritrea, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, the UAE, Ukraine, and Venezuela. These states have discovered that Interpol Red Notices serve as “the sniper rifle of autocrats”, long-distance, targeted, and highly effective.

The human impact cannot be overstated. Rhys Davies, who also gave evidence to the Committee, explained that a Red Notice

“can ruin your life… You will be in constant fear that, if you were to go on holiday to Spain, an overzealous passport control officer might think they have an international super-criminal… and will detain you. There is no aspect of your life that this will not touch upon.”

Perhaps most troublingly, the Committee heard that Country Policy and Information Notes, the key documents used by Home Office officials when assessing asylum claims, contain no specific information about threats related to transnational repression. This means that even well-intentioned officials lack the contextual framework to identify when an Interpol Notice might be politically motivated rather than a legitimate law enforcement tool.

The burden placed on victims is concerning. Once a Red Notice exists, challenging its validity in the context of an immigration decision requires significant funding, specialised legal expertise, and considerable time, resources that most refugees and asylum seekers simply do not possess. The Committee heard that it can take years for politically motivated Red Notices to be removed through Interpol’s Commission for the Control of Files, during which time individuals remain in limbo, unable to travel safely or regularise their status.

The UK Government’s response to these challenges has been tepid. While officials assured the Committee that “clear procedures” exist to ensure Interpol notices don’t unfairly influence immigration decisions, the evidence suggests otherwise. The gulf between policy and practice appears vast, with Ben Keith noting the critical need for education within the Civil Service about analysing whether a Red Notice is genuine.

The Committee’s recommendations represent a comprehensive blueprint for reform. They have called for mandatory training for all relevant Home Office staff on identifying politically motivated Red Notices, and a complete revision of Country Policy and Information Notes to explicitly address transnational repression threats. Crucially, they have given the Government just six months to report back on specific steps taken to improve training.

The Committee has also recommended that the Government undertake a formal review to consider introducing a mechanism whereby the Home Office or National Crime Agency could alert individuals to the existence of a Red Notice where there is strong evidence of political motivation. Additionally, they propose a voluntary system allowing targeted British nationals to notify the Foreign Office of planned travel to high-risk countries, enabling UK missions to prepare for early intervention if needed.

These reforms cannot come soon enough. In an era where authoritarian states increasingly project their power beyond their borders, the UK must ensure its systems cannot be co-opted as tools of transnational repression. The integrity of the UK’s asylum system, and its reputation as a defender of human rights, depends on recognising that not all Interpol Red Notices are created equal, and that those seeking safety from persecution must not be trapped by the very mechanisms supposedly designed to deliver justice.

The full report can be accessed here.

—

Image: Samuel-Elias Nadler on Unsplash