Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025: Strengthening the Serious Crime Prevention Orders Regime

The Serious Crime Prevention Order (“SCPO”) regime was first introduced by Part 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. It is a civil order that is imposed by a court and intended to protect the public by preventing, restricting, or disrupting a person’s involvement in serious crime. It does this by, for example, imposing travel restrictions, limiting access to electronic devices, and imposing an obligation to report financial affairs to the police. An order can last for up to 5 years and a breach of such an order is a criminal offence, which is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.[1] Thus, a SCPO is a powerful Order that can have severe and highly restrictive consequences for an individual.

In 2015, the SCPO regime was strengthened by amendments introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2015. Prior to the amendments introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2015, 182 SCPO’s had been obtained by the National Crime Agency (“NCA”), whilst an additional 136 SCPO’s had been obtained by agencies and police forces other than the NCA.[2] The amendments introduced by the Serious Crime Act 2015 included widening the scope of the offences that could be included, including possession of a firearm or shotgun without certificate, the manufacture of prohibited weapons, the cultivation of cannabis and offences contrary to the Computer Misuse Act 1990. It also enabled the Crown Court to replace, rather than vary, the terms of a SCPO upon breach.

The introduction of the SCPO regime has proven to be popular with law enforcement agencies. Alison Abbott, Head of the NCA’s Prison and Lifetime Management Unit said: “The NCA deal with the most serious and harmful criminals who have made their crimes their careers and believe they are beyond the reach of the law… Ancillary orders such as Serious Crime Prevention Orders mean we can monitor their activities, behaviours, preventing future offending and putting a stop to a return to a life of organised crime following their time in prison.”[3] The NCA have made frequent use of SCPOs. For example, between September 2024 and September 2025, 32 people have been issued with SCPOs by the NCA, including Radhouane Bouhafs who was imprisoned in August 2024 for running a document forgery factory in London on behalf of gangs involved in people smuggling and other immigration crime. In 2025, no less than 15 cases have come before either the High Court or Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) that have involved SCPOs in one aspect or another.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 which received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025 has broadened the SCPO regime by including amendments to the Serious Crime Act 2007. These amendments introduce the power to include an electronic monitoring requirement as part of an SCPO and enables law enforcement agencies to apply to the High Court for an “interim” SCPO to impose immediate restrictions upon individuals whilst a full order is being considered. Crucially, “an application for an interim serious crime prevention order, may be made without notice being given to the person against whom the order is to be made in circumstances where notice of the application is likely to prejudice the outcome sought by the applicant.”[4] If an interim SCPO has been imposed without notice, the Court must give an individual the opportunity to make representations about the order “as soon as reasonably practicable” and “at a hearing of which notice has been given to P in accordance with rules of court.”[5]

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 has also enabled the Crown Court to make a SCPO order on acquittal, similar to other orders (such as a restraining order). The Crown Court will be able to impose an SCPO on a person on acquittal provided it is a) ”satisfied“ that the person has been involved in serious crime (whether in England and Wales or elsewhere) and b) when the court has ”reasonable grounds“ to believe that an SCPO would protect the public by preventing, restricting, or disrupting involvement by the person in serious crime in England and Wales. There may well be cases where the acquittal by a jury will not be the end of matters for defendants, who may ultimately face more draconian measures than they could have been subjected to under the terms of Bail from the Crown Court, or other ancillary orders.

However, the terms of the imposition of a SCPO, be it before, on, or without conviction, are subject to the ultimate safeguard of proportionality. The Test is well established, and is set out in the case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39, where Lord Reed JSC formulated the test as follows:

• whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right;
• whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective;
• whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective; and
• whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter.

In most instances, “fair balance” is where the true battle ground lies in proportionality-based assessments. For example, how to strike a “fair balance” will vary dependent upon the alleged criminal conduct, the circumstances of the defendant, and the circumstances in which the order is made i.e. pre-conviction, post-conviction, or on acquittal.

An important consideration for any person facing a SCPO will be to consider what arguments might be made to demonstrate an order generally, or specific terms of an order, will result in an unjustified and disproportionate interference with their fundamental rights, be them the  Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8); Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9); Freedom of expression (Article 10) or Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11), in addition to a persons rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (A1P1).

[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81a9bae5274a2e87dbed74/Fact_sheet_-_SCPOs_-_Act.pdf

[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81a9bae5274a2e87dbed74/Fact_sheet_-_SCPOs_-_Act.pdf

[3] https://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/news/document-forger-and-drug-smuggler-among-names-added-as-nca-publishes-updated-list-of-ancillary-orders-to-restrict-serious-criminals

[4] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31/part/3/crossheading/serious-crime-prevention-orders/enacted

[5] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31/part/3/crossheading/serious-crime-prevention-orders/enacted