UK immigration investigations and seized phones: access to records is different from a full forensic download

What the new guidance addresses

On 20 October 2026 the Home Office updated its digital-device extraction guidance, including the approach agreed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and Crown Prosecution Service to requests under section 21 of PACE. The subject is access and copying of seized material, including requests for a complete device extraction.

The update is guidance for criminal investigations. It should not be presented as a general new power to search every traveller’s phone or as a rule that people lose all access to essential records whenever a device is seized.

Identify the legal power and the purpose of the request

The guidance distinguishes provisions governing access to retained property from the criminal disclosure regime. It refers to section 21 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the corresponding Northern Ireland provision and section 28I of the Immigration Act 1971. The applicable power and jurisdiction should be identified in the actual case.

A request to recover a business invoice, medication record or family contact may serve a different purpose from a request for evidence needed to challenge a prosecution. Explaining the purpose helps the investigator assess what access or copying is required and whether a stated reason for refusal addresses that request.

A full extraction is not automatically the access remedy

The updated guidance says section 21 does not itself entitle the defence to a full forensic download. It describes supervised access to relevant content as potentially sufficient and recognises grounds for restricting access where the statutory conditions are met. That does not resolve every disclosure obligation in the criminal case.

A narrowly described request can be more useful than asking for everything on the device without explanation. Specify the records, relevant date range and practical need, while preserving the separate position on disclosure. Keep the request and response so any refusal or limitation can be assessed against the actual legal basis.

Defence evidence belongs in the disclosure process too

Where material could undermine the prosecution or assist the defence, the guidance directs engagement through the existing Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act framework. A defence team should explain why particular content matters and use the appropriate procedure, rather than assume that an access request and a disclosure request are interchangeable.

For example, messages may establish who controlled a transaction or explain an apparently incriminating entry. Their evidential significance can depend on context, metadata and surrounding communications. A photograph of one screen may meet an immediate practical need without being an adequate substitute for the material required for a fair criminal trial.

Retention, privacy and immigration records remain distinct

The legality of seizure, the justification for continued retention, access to records and disclosure are separate questions. The guidance does not remove data-protection obligations or professional confidentiality concerns. Obtain advice before making assumptions about privileged material, and preserve the record of what was taken and under which authority.

Travellers and migrants may also need access to immigration documents or deadlines stored on the device. Explain the specific need and seek lawful access or copies. Do not assume that a seized phone automatically extends an application deadline; notify the relevant decision maker and document the obstacle.

• Record the seizure authority, inventory and investigating contact.
• Describe the particular records needed and why.
• Separate practical access from defence disclosure requests.
• Seek advice on refusal, retention, privilege and the available remedy.

Our UK identity-document analysis explains why having a copy of a record may still leave a separate question about what proves identity or permission. The new extraction guidance makes careful procedural choices especially important.

Legal check date

Sources and law checked on 21 October 2026. Later developments are not reflected automatically. Application of the rules depends on the individual facts.