BID: unlawful detention cases

A number of cases of former BID clients, which had been referred for unlawful detention claims in the Administrative Court reached judgment.  In all three cases summarised here, their detention was ruled unlawful.

In October 2011, the High Court found that the detention of Mounir Raki, a client of BID’s, for over four years was ‘self-evidently unreasonable’. BID referred Mounir to Leigh Day & Co Solicitors, who represented him in this case. The Judge found that there was medical evidence that Mounir’s mental health was deteriorating because of his detention and he was seriously self-harming. The case was covered in the Guardian. Read more

QARN: Statement on Indefinite Detention of migrants and people seeking asylum

On Human Rights day 10 December 2011: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Day2011/Pages/HRD2011.aspx

As Quakers we believe that there is that of God in everyone. We see the Testimony to Equality as clearly relevant to our concerns about those migrants and asylum seekers who are kept in detention. They are treated much worse than those born British.

Public outrage – and indifference

The right to liberty is a fundamental right enjoyed by all people in the United Kingdom, whether British citizens or subject to immigration control. It is a right established in common law as well as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Recent anti-terror legislation that allows for terror suspects to be locked up without being charged has been controversial. The time limit has now been reduced to 14 days. There has justifiably been an outcry about this situation. However, thousands of people are kept every year in detention by the UK Borders Agency with no date set for their release, yet there is no public outrage about this.

The Immigration Act 1971 first included the power to detain immigrants; later legislation has extended or amended that power. People can be detained on arrival in the UK as immigrants or when seeking asylum, if considered likely to abscond, or when they have already been refused the right to remain and deportation is expected to be imminent.[1]

 Immigration officers decide

The decision to detain is made by immigration officers without reference to a court. In theory each detainee has the right to apply for bail after 7 days, but many people are unaware of this procedure and find it difficult to access legal advice. The immigration court ‘judges’ do not have to be trained or experienced to the level of judges in the criminal and civil courts, inadequate records are kept, and in many cases the Home Office view that the applicant is likely to abscond is accepted without evidence.[2]

In theory it is Government policy not to detain survivors of torture or those with serious medical conditions or mental health problems, but in practice even proven survivors of rape and torture, pregnant women, and those with severe mental and physical health problems are often found in detention. Many innocent men, women and children who have been locked up in immigration detention centres have suffered severe mental health problems, with detention in many cases adding to trauma already suffered in their home country. [3]

 Our Objective:

‘That which is morally wrong cannot be politically right’ 1822   QF&P 23.26

We call for the ending of indefinite detention, which is fundamentally unjust and causes much suffering to its victims.

Website: http://qarn.org.uk

See also: Detention Action http://www.detentionaction.org.uk

Sample letter: Transparency of UK BA decision-making regarding detention

Dear                                                                    MP,

Transparency of UK BA decision-making regarding detention

I am writing, as your constituent, to deplore UK BA’s use of detention in the immigration system of this country. It is, in my view an infringement of the individual’s rights as a human, and ultimately a threat to all our liberties. It is wrong to lock people up with neither a suspicion nor a conviction of a crime, without time limit. Read more

Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency is inviting stakeholders’ views

The Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency  is inviting stakeholders’ views on  development of his inspection plan for 2012-13. 

Views should be sent to: chiefinspectorUKBA@icinspector.gsi.gov.uk  or to the postal address: Attn: Inspection Plan Consultation, Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, 5^th Floor, Globe House, 89 Eccleston Square, London, SW1V 1PN by30 November 2011.

Still Human Members are encouraged to propose the asylum support system for review, including: Read more

Britain opts out of EU asylum directive

The UK has decided not to implement two asylum directives of the European Union as part of its moves to be tough on immigration and asylum seekers, says the Economic Times.
Signing up to the EU’s Reception Conditions Directive would have forced Britain to allow asylum seekers to work after six months, even if their claims had been refused and they were appealing against the decision.
Immigration Minister Damian Green has informed Parliament that the UK will not be opting into the EU asylum directives.
According to him, the directives would have ‘restricted the country’s ability to run an asylum system which is both fair and efficient’.
“This Government does not support a common asylum system in Europe. That is why we have not opted in to these directives and will not opt in to any proposal which would weaken our border,” Green said.

A Home Office release said that signing up to the directives would have sent out the “wrong message, encouraging those who do not need our protection to make unfounded asylum claims”.
“It would also have required all detention to be authorised by a judge, whether or not the detainee wanted to apply for bail. This would have placed a burden on our courts and been costly for the British taxpayer,” the Home Office said in a statement.

It said that opting in to the Procedures Directive “would have jeopardised ways of working which enable the UK to manage straightforward asylum claims effectively – in particular the Detained Fast Track which provides speedy but fair decisions for asylum seekers whose claims can be decided quickly.” Source:Economic Times/  Immigration Matters

THIS POST WAS WRITTEN BY CHARLES KELLY ON OCTOBER 18, 2011

Yarls Wood detainees forced to use O2 phone service

New detainees arriving at Yarl’s Wood immigration prison, run by outsourcing giant Serco, are being given new mobile phones locked to O2 SIM cards with the back covers glued on so that no other SIM cards can be used, Corporate Watch can reveal. The new system, criticised by campaigners for isolating, monitoring and exploiting detainees even further, follows a similar scheme introduced by G4S in Tinsley House, near Gatwick airport. Read more

No plans to adopt a maximum time limit for immigration detention

Damian Green says in a letter replying to a question put to an MP:

‘There are no plans to adopt a maximum time limit for immigration detention. This would be out of step with long-standing UK law and policy and goes beyond the requirements of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.’

We had hoped for changes that would affect the length of detention for those in the immigration system,  and this may still come through the Judges who have decision-making authority when a bail application comes before them. See: Immigration Bail Hearings: A Travesty of Justice? Observations from the Public  Gallery, Campaign to Close Campsfield, March 2011.  http://closecampsfield.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ccc-bop-report-low-res.pdf.

A default position was not mentioned in Damian Green’s letter. It looks as though we have some way to go with this campaign, and QARN as a network seeks to make connections with other campaigning organisations so that we can work collaboratively.

29.9.2011

QARN: Statement on Indefinite Detention of migrants and people seeking asylum

Statement on Indefinite Detention of migrants and people seeking asylum

As Quakers we believe that there is that of God in everyone. We see the Testimony to Equality as clearly relevant to our concerns about those migrants and asylum seekers who are kept in detention. They are treated much worse than those born British.

Public outrage – and indifference

The right to liberty is a fundamental right enjoyed by all people in the United Kingdom, whether British citizens or subject to immigration control. It is a right established in common law as well as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Recent anti-terror legislation that allows for terror suspects to be locked up without being charged has been controversial. The time limit has now been reduced to 14 days. There has justifiably been an outcry about this situation. However, thousands of people are kept every year in detention by the UK Borders Agency with no date set for their release, yet there is no public outrage about this.

The Immigration Act 1971 first included the power to detain immigrants; later legislation has extended or amended that power. People can be detained on arrival in the UK as immigrants or when seeking asylum, if considered likely to abscond, or when they have already been refused the right to remain and deportation is expected to be imminent.[1]

 Immigration officers decide

The decision to detain is made by immigration officers without reference to a court. In theory each detainee has the right to apply for bail after 7 days, but many people are unaware of this procedure and find it difficult to access legal advice. The immigration court ‘judges’ do not have to be trained or experienced to the level of judges in the criminal and civil courts, inadequate records are kept, and in many cases the Home Office view that the applicant is likely to abscond is accepted without evidence.[2]

In theory it is Government policy not to detain survivors of torture or those with serious medical conditions or mental health problems, but in practice even proven survivors of rape and torture, pregnant women, and those with severe mental and physical health problems are often found in detention. Many innocent men, women and children who have been locked up in immigration detention centres have suffered severe mental health problems, with detention in many cases adding to trauma already suffered in their home country. [3]

Our Objective:

 ‘That which is morally wrong cannot be politically right’ 1822   QF&P 23.26

 We call for the ending of indefinite detention, which is fundamentally unjust and causes much suffering to its victims.

Website: http://qarn.org.uk

See also: Detention Action http://www.detentionaction.org.uk

Suggested letter to send to your MP about indefinite detention

House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA

Dear

Re: End indefinite detention of people in immigration removal centres

I am writing to call for the end to the indefinite detention of people who
are in immigration removal centres across the UK.

Detention Action believes that the Home Office practice of indefinitely
detaining people who cannot be returned to their country of origin is a
waste of money and human lives. I encourage you to read Detention Action’s
report No Return, No Release, No Reason and the previous report Detained
Lives: The real cost of indefinite detention. These reports highlight that
indefinite detention simply does not work: as a means of deporting people,
it is ineffective and grossly inefficient, costing £68,000 per detainee per
year. The testimony of detainees shows the terrible human cost, with many
experiencing mental health problems, self-harming or attempting suicide.

The UK government derogates from the EU Returns Directive which sets an 18
month maximum time limit for immigration detention. Detained Lives calls on
the government to end this inhumane and ineffective practice.

I would like to ask you to urge the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint
Committee of Human Rights to investigate the detention system.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Report on an announced inspection of Tinsley House IRC 7 – 11 February 2011

The family unit was in the process of refurbishment and was designed to house up to eight families with children. These plans to hold children in the IRC sit uneasily with the government’s stated commitment to end child detention for immigration purposes. We were told two types of family might be held at Tinsley House: those detained from aircraft and awaiting a flight back to their home countries, and families judged unsuitable for the new  ‘predeparture accommodation’ currently under construction nearby. We will return to inspect and report on both these family facilities once they open.

Next Page »