A 29-year-old Indian national who tried to procure sexual services from a minor – only to find himself communicating with a police officer working in an undercover capacity – has exhausted all options for remaining in Britain.
Arpitkumar Ashwinkumar Barot arrived in the United Kingdom in 2022 under a student visa arrangement. He was found guilty at Lewes Crown Court on January 23, 2023 of organising or assisting child sexual activity.
At the point of sentencing, his recorded address was on Gossops Parade in Crawley.
The court imposed a 17-month prison term, suspended for a period of two years, along with a requirement to undertake 35 days of rehabilitative work.
According to court records, Barot replied to a classified advertisement on an escort service platform that advertised encounters involving children.
He conducted multiple message exchanges and participated in two phone conversations to establish a meeting, agreeing to provide £90 for unprotected oral sex. He presented himself at the designated location with £100 in cash, where officers in an undercover operation took him into custody.
The sentencing judge observed that content stored on his mobile device – whilst not technically illegal on their own – pointed to an attraction towards school-aged females.
In November 2023, Barot submitted an application to stay under the graduate immigration pathway. The Home Office rejected this application in January 2024, determining that his offence constituted a criminal act responsible for causing significant damage as defined by section 9.4.1(c) of the Immigration Regulations. A subsequent administrative review confirmed this refusal in February 2024.
His spouse Khyatiben Sudhirbhal Barot, whose own entitlement to remain in Britain was entirely contingent upon her husband’s immigration position, was listed as a joint appellant in the case.
Representatives for Barot subsequently applied for a judicial review of this ruling, though the petition was submitted a full week beyond the permitted 90-day window. A judge declined to grant an extension during a preliminary hearing conducted on January 31, 2025, determining that no satisfactory justification existed for the postponement and that whilst the matter possessed some merit, it lacked sufficient strength to warrant additional time.
A further challenge to the Court of Appeal was itself lodged three days past the relevant cutoff, with the legal representatives at SAJ Legal explaining that the pair were unable to instruct counsel until after the deadline had passed. On March 4, 2026, Lord Justice Lewis, presiding alongside Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Zacaroli, acting on behalf of the Appeal Court, declined to permit an extension and dismissed the case.
The tribunal determined that seeking to purchase sex from a minor – even when interacting with a decoy officer – sustains a commercial environment for the sexual exploitation of children and therefore exacerbates what official Home Office guidance terms a pervasive issue causing substantial damage to society.
Barot’s contention that no genuine minor suffered harm since the only participant was an undercover operative was dismissed.