A major administrative blunder in the UK prison system has led to a convicted sex offender being mistakenly released from custody, only to be paid £500 to leave the country, prompting widespread public anger.
Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian national, was scheduled to be transferred from HMP Chelmsford to an immigration detention centre last Friday but was erroneously freed instead, triggering a two-day manhunt. The case drew national attention after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood confirmed Kebatu had been forcibly deported to Ethiopia on Tuesday night.
Officials revealed that Kebatu received a £500 payment from removal teams after threatening to disrupt his deportation. While the Home Secretary insisted she had “pulled every lever” to ensure Kebatu’s removal from British soil, the payment has raised fresh questions about government procedures and accountability.
Prison authorities have been instructed to implement enhanced checks before inmate releases, aimed at preventing similar errors in the future. An independent inquiry has also been launched to investigate the circumstances that allowed Kebatu to leave prison unlawfully.
This incident highlights a broader system in which the UK government offers financial incentives for migrants to return voluntarily to their home countries. Known as “assisted returns,” the scheme has reportedly cost the government £53 million over the past four years, with individual payments of up to £3,000 available alongside travel arrangements. In Kebatu’s case, the £500 was reportedly viewed by officials as a pragmatic measure to expedite his departure, avoiding the alternative: a more complex and costly process involving detention, arranging a new flight, and potential legal challenges.
Public reaction has been swift, with many expressing outrage that a convicted sex offender could receive taxpayer-funded cash. Critics argue that the decision undermines public confidence in both the criminal justice and immigration systems, particularly when the offender in question poses a serious risk to the community.
Home Office sources stressed that the payment decision was made by removal teams, not government ministers, and was intended to ensure a speedy resolution of a high-risk situation. Nevertheless, the incident has intensified scrutiny of the assisted returns program and prompted calls for tighter oversight of prisoner transfers and deportations.
As the independent inquiry proceeds, questions remain about how such a mistake occurred and whether existing safeguards are sufficient to prevent high-risk offenders from being inadvertently released in future. The episode serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in managing prison releases and immigration enforcement in tandem.
