Teenager from South Sudan admits piloting super-dinghy full of UK-bound migrants across the Channel
A 19-year-old South Sudanese man, Chan Atak, has pleaded guilty to endangering lives at sea after piloting a severely overcrowded rigid inflatable "super-dinghy" carrying more than 160 people across the Channel to the UK. He appeared before Canterbury Crown Court, where Judge Sarah Counsell noted he had admitted a "serious offence"; he now faces potential jail time and deportation, with sentencing set for 11 September.
The crossing took place on 23 July, with a previous hearing at Margate Magistrates' Court told the boat was of poor quality and dangerously overcrowded. Atak's case follows that of Afghan national Basir Ramatullah, jailed for two years last month for steering an overcrowded dinghy for two hours during a crossing on 2 May, under the same offence introduced in January as part of new border security laws. Home Office figures show the migrants aboard Atak's boat were among more than 2,300 people who arrived in the UK illegally via the Channel during July.
- South Sudanese teen admits piloting Channel dinghy carrying 160+ migrants
- Faces jail and deportation; sentencing due 11 September
- Follows similar conviction of an Afghan man last month
New here? Start with this
Chan Atak, a 19-year-old from South Sudan, is at the centre of a legal case linked to Channel crossings, which have become one of the UK's most contested political issues. Migrants without visas have increasingly paid smugglers to take them across the Channel in small boats, often overcrowded rigid-hulled dinghies, to claim asylum on arrival. In January the government introduced a new offence targeting people who pilot these boats, treating it as endangering the lives of those on board, and the case in question is one of the first prosecutions to test it.
Court cases like this typically involve migrants who end up steering the boats, sometimes under pressure from smuggling gangs, rather than the organisers who profit from arranging the crossings. This raises questions about who the law is actually catching, and how prosecutions of this kind fit into the wider government effort to deter crossings and curb Channel arrivals, which have run into the thousands so far this year.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of prosecuting those who pilot these boats argue that the law targets a genuinely dangerous act: taking control of a vastly overloaded, poor-quality vessel and steering it across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes puts well over a hundred lives, including children, at real risk of drowning. They contend that smuggling networks deliberately recruit migrants themselves, often under pressure or in exchange for a free or discounted crossing, to pilot boats so the organisers stay safely on French soil beyond the reach of British courts, meaning prosecuting pilots is one of the few practical levers available to disrupt that model. On this view, consistent sentencing, as seen in the earlier case of Basir Ramatullah, sends a clear deterrent signal that piloting an overcrowded dinghy is a serious criminal act with serious consequences, regardless of the pilot's own circumstances.
The case against
Critics of this approach argue that many of those who end up steering these boats are themselves desperate asylum seekers, often coerced, threatened or offered a discount by smugglers who never board the vessel themselves, meaning the law risks punishing a vulnerable participant rather than the organiser who profits and remains untouched. They point out that a 19-year-old fleeing South Sudan, a country marked by ongoing conflict and instability, may have had little genuine choice when handed the tiller, and that treating him as a criminal smuggler rather than as someone caught up in a system designed by others conflates victimhood with culpability. On this view, resources and deterrent efforts would be better focused upstream on the smuggling networks and safe, legal routes to claim asylum, rather than on jailing and deporting the migrants who happen to be at the wheel when the boat is intercepted.