Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law
EU Settlement Scheme course now available FREE to members
Pandemic detention research “lays bare a catalogue of failings”

Pandemic detention research “lays bare a catalogue of failings”

New research by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) on detention during the pandemic “lays bare a catalogue of failings”, the charity says.

With the authorities insisting on keeping detention centres open despite health concerns, BID has been working on individual immigration bail applications. It represented 55 people between 23 March (the start of lockdown) and 1 May, 52 of whom were released — a success rate of 95%.

BID says that analysis of 42 of the successful cases undermines the Home Office justification for keeping people locked up.

The department says that most of those still in detention have committed a criminal offence and have been refused release based on the “risk of harm” to the public. But BID found that in only nine of the 42 cases did officials alleged that the person presented a high risk of harm. In the majority of cases, they simply pointed to the person’s record and presented no evidence about future risk.

Detention is only supposed to be used where the person’s removal from the UK is imminent. Travel restrictions are making this impossible, but the Home Office is routinely ignoring this inconvenient fact: in 32 of the 42 cases examined, the department’s opposition to bail made no mention of travel restrictions whatever.

BID’s report concludes:

it is clear that Home Office use of detention during this period does not appear to be justified in the findings of the independent courts.

The charity’s director, Celia Clarke, said “this research lays bare a catalogue of failings in the Home Office’s approach to detention decision-making”.

CJ is Free Movement's deputy editor. He's here to make sure that the website is on top of everything that happens in the world of immigration law, whether by writing articles, commissioning them out or considering pitches. When not writing about immigration law, CJ covers wider legal affairs at the website Legal Cheek and on Twitter: follow him @mckinneytweets.

There are comments on this article.

Only members can view and comment on articles, as well as many other benefits.

Explore membership now
X
Not yet a member?

Get unlimited access to articles, a thriving forum, free e-books, online training materials with downloadable training certificates, and much more.

Need to keep up-to-date on immigration, asylum and nationality law?

Sign up as a member from just £20 plus VAT per month

Join Now

Benefits Include

  • Unlimited access to all blog posts
  • Access to our busy forum
  • Free downloads of all our ebooks
  • Hundreds of hours of training courses
Shares