Exposed: Cllr David Wimble’s False Asylum Law Claims — Debunked by UK Courts, Statute and Parliament

Updated 12:10 12/11/25

Cllr David Wimble, Kent County Council’s Cabinet Member for Environment, used a local platform to deliver a sweeping denunciation of small-boat crossings and the UK asylum system, via The Looker – which he owns and controls, according to Companies House. It is a forceful read — but where it should marshal facts, it leans on slogans, legal inaccuracies and insinuation. At a time when precision matters, this is not good enough from a senior public official.

The Headline Claims Don’t Survive Contact With The Law – And The UK Courts Say So

Wimble – who “gained a lot of experience at the BBC,”, like his boss Linden Kemkaran – repeats two tropes: that people must claim asylum in the “first safe country” and that merely entering UK territorial waters is itself a crime. Both are wrong in law — and British rulings make that crystal clear.

No “first safe country” rule. The UK’s Refugee Convention obligations do not require a person to claim in the first safe country they reach. The High Court held as much in R v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court, ex p Adimi (1999), where Simon Brown LJ recognised that Article 31 protects refugees who travel irregularly and do not claim in transit states. The House of Commons Library likewise explains that the Convention contains no such duty.

No, you can’t “apply at a British embassy and fly in.” There is no general process to lodge a UK asylum claim abroad. Parliament’s researchers state it plainly: people must be in the UK to claim asylum, and there is no asylum visa or embassy route.

Article 31 defence is on the statute book — and the higher courts have enforced it. Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 embeds a defence for refugees prosecuted over document offences where they present promptly and show good cause for irregular travel. The House of Lords in R v Asfaw [2008] UKHL 31 warned against prosecutorial tactics that sidestep that defence; the Court of Appeal in R v Mateta [2013] EWCA Crim 1372 quashed convictions in multiple such cases. The Home Office’s own guidance summarises how the defence operates.

Being in UK territorial waters isn’t, by itself, the offence. Post-2022 law created offences of knowingly arriving without valid entry clearance (Immigration Act 1971, s.24(D1)) and expanded facilitation offences. Courts and guidance draw a line between arrival/entry and mere presence at sea: prosecutors in the 21 Dec 2022 “small boats” rulings charged attempts precisely because defendants were intercepted before landfall. CPS guidance and the legislation confirm how the amended offences work; they do not make the sea itself a strict-liability zone for asylum seekers.

Locally flagged — and correctly. The Shepway Vox Team, which urged readers to check the case law, has long reminded Kent audiences that international law does not impose a “first safe country” rule, that Adimi says so, and that crossing by private vessel is not per se unlawful (smuggling is). Wimble could have checked before publishing.

Rhetoric About Routes Ad “Gaming The System” Overreaches

Calling asylum a “lucrative industry” is a rhetorical staple. There is a shard of truth: the Home Office’s accommodation spend has ballooned, and contracting has drawn sharp value-for-money scrutiny. The National Audit Office sets out the costs and the shift to large sites; the Home Affairs Committee records spending rising from £739m (2019–20) to £4.7bn (2023–24) and the projected rise in 10-year contract costs from £4.5bn to £15.3bn. That demands reform — transparent contracts, tighter incentives, faster throughput — not pot-shots at “caseworkers”.

Kent Is On The Frontline – Which Is Why Accuarcy Matters More, Not Less

Folkestone & Hythe is on the frontline. Napier Barracks has been used as asylum accommodation since September 2020 and remains a lightning rod for debate, with closure timelines and provider changes repeatedly in the news this year. That is precisely why county leaders must get the basics right: what the law says, what powers exist, and what trade-offs are real. Overstating rules breeds unrealistic expectations — then public anger when simplified “solutions” meet legal and diplomatic limits.

What A Fact Led Version Of Wimble’s Argument Could Look Like

If Cllr Wimble wants fewer dangerous crossings, there is a serious case to make. It would rest on:

• Returns that work in practice, not in press releases — inadmissibility only bites where a safe country agrees to take someone back within a reasonable period. That means dull, necessary diplomacy. 

• Contracting reform — stop paying through the nose for hotels and align provider incentives with quicker case resolution, as the NAO and committees urge. 

• Backlog and screening capacity — faster routing and decision-making reduce the very hotel costs the public rightly hates.

A Word On Targets And Tone

Wimble swipes at local MPs. Whatever one thinks of their politics, they operate under the same binding law and constraints as any minister. Turning legitimate disagreements into caricature — “compassion versus control” — is easy politics. Kent needs harder work: evidence-based proposals, costed options, and candour about trade-offs.

The Bottom Line

Cllr David Wimble holds real responsibility at County Hall. That platform carries a duty to inform as well as to inflame. On three central points — first safe country, embassy applications, and what counts as an offence at sea — his column misstates the law. On spending and accommodation, it gestures at genuine problems while ducking specifics. Kent deserves better than a viral-ready take. It deserves facts, workable policy, and leaders who respect both.

PS: Serious question for Cllr David Wimble: Your Delux Radio biography says you “gained a lot of experience at the BBC,” and your social posts show several appearances on BBC Radio Kent. Will you publish the specifics—dates, programmes, roles (staff/freelance/guest), and commissioning editors—so voters can see the scope of that BBC experience? More broadly, has your broadcasting background encouraged a style of political communication that prioritises performance over verifiable fact, and if not, will you address the documented inaccuracies and concerns raised about your recent statements with evidence? 

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime