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.

Continued detention was unlawful – Administrative Court decision

R (on the application of Mjemer) v SSHD QBD (Admin Court) 12 May 2011 (unreported)
Although an immigration detainee posed a moderate to high risk of absconding and a moderate risk of re-offending if released from detention before being deported, when the fact that he had been detained for over two years and four months, the likelihood that he would not be deported within a reasonable time-frame, and the effect on him of detention was taken into account, his continued detention was unlawful.

Fast Track to Despair

Detention Action (formerly London Detainee Support Group) advocates for policy change on immigration detention in the UK and provides support and advice to people detained under immigration powers in the London area. Through our daily contact with asylum-seekers and other migrants in detention, we ensure that their voices are heard and their experiences contribute to debate on immigration detention. Read more

Articles relating to detention

Revisit recommendations of the JCHR 2007 report

Dr Hywel Francis MP
Chair
Joint Committee on Human Rights
Committee Office
House of Commons
7 Millbank
London SW1P 3JA

24^th March 2011

Dear Dr Francis,

Re: Revisiting the JCHR report, The Treatment of Asylum Seekers

The 2007 report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) on the treatment of asylum seekers was strongly welcomed by NGOs.  It set out in compelling detail the inadequacies of a system that is failing to protect the human rights of asylum seekers, through arbitrary decision-making, poor administration and overly complex systems.

Sadly, the report did not become the basis of a fairer, more humane, more effective system with human rights at its core.  With the notable exception of the commitment to end the detention of children, there has been little progress on many issues of concern to the JCHR.  Indeed, in some areas the situation has deteriorated significantly.   As organisations concerned about the use of detention, we believe that, four years on, it is time for the JCHR to revisit its report and assess how far the Government has addressed problems with the treatment of asylum seekers in the UK. Read more

Captive phone market at Tinsley House

Detainees at Tinsley House, near Gatwick, are having their mobile phones confiscated on arrival, and are being forced to rely on a network which allows monitoring – and costs them more for essential calls.
IMMIGRATION detainees are highly dependent on their mobile phones for contact with the outside world, including their legal representatives, family members and where necessary, organisations such as the Samaritans, their MPs and the media. But this is all set to change if a pilot currently being run at Tinsley House is extended. Read more

UK Immigration Courts: Observations from the Public Gallery

The Old Bailey, crown courts, magistrates courts — we’ve all heard of them, have probably read court reports, may even have attended them in person. But immigration courts? This is where decisions made by the government (the UK Border Agency) in immigration matters — including the administrative detention of some 25,000 people every year without time limit, without criminal charge or proper explanation — can be challenged.

A bail application to an immigration court is generally the most accessible way for detainees to seek their release from detention centres such as Campsfield, Yarl’s Wood, Harmondsworth, Colnbrook andBrook House, places where detainees — including torture survivors — routinely suffer from mental illness (some detainees’ stories here). Read more

The indefinite detention of foreign prisoners

With no time limit on immigration detention, hundreds of people who can’t be deported are spending years locked up, with no idea when they will be released or sent home. Human rights lawyers say this breaches detainees’ human rights.

The Home Office says some people who spend long periods in detention refuse to cooperate with their own deportation. But as Harriet Grant discovered, the truth is less clear cut.

We hear from Ahmed, who was desperate to go back to Iran, but when the Home Office couldn’t get travel documents for him he ended up spending two years in immigration detention. He is now fighting for compensation for the time he spent locked up. Read more

« Previous Page — Next Page »