Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:29 am
Time: 1:29 am
Results for immigrant detention (u.k.)
7 results foundAuthor: Great Britain. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Expectations: Criteria for Assessing the Conditions for and Treatment of Immigration Detainees Summary: This is the third edition of our Expectations for immigration detention– the criteria we use during our inspections to assess the treatment and conditions of those held in immigration removal centres, short-term holding facilities, family detention and under escort, both within the UK and overseas. These Expectations were drawn up after extensive consultation and are based on and referenced against international human rights standards. They are part of the process by which UK fulfils its obligations as a signatory to the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). They reflect that immigration detainees are not held because they have been charged or convicted with a criminal offence and their detention has not been authorised through any judicial process. These changes are part of a systematic revision of our expectations for all the establishments we inspect to ensure they focus squarely on the outcomes for those held, rather than simply checking process and procedure. However, we recognise that the administrative nature of this type of detention means that procedural safeguards and processes have a particular importance, and our inspections will continue to examine and report on their implementation. Expectations are brigaded under four healthy prison tests – safety, respect, activities and preparation for release. These reflect the tests we apply in all our inspections, adjusted to reflect the nature of immigration detention. Each expectation is underpinned by a series of ‘indicators’, which describe the evidence that will normally indicate to inspectors whether the outcome is likely to have been achieved or not. Expectations describe the standards of treatment and conditions we expect an establishment to achieve. Indicators suggest evidence that may indicate whether the expectations have been achieved. The list of indicators is not exhaustive and these do not exclude an establishment demonstrating the expectation has been met in other ways. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2012. 142p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/immigration-expectations.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/hmipris/immigration-expectations.pdf Shelf Number: 126791 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.) |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The Effectiveness and Impact of Immigration Detention Casework: A Joint Thematic Review Summary: On any given day during the first quarter of 2012, around 3,500 people were detained under immigration powers, either in immigration removal centres or prisons. More than 40 people held in immigration centres had been held for over two years. While the courts have held that detention with a view to removal is only lawful if there is a realistic prospect of this occurring within a reasonable period, there is no statutory time limit on how long someone can be detained. A consistent finding of previous HMIP inspection reports and research is that detainees experience heightened levels of anxiety and distress as a result of their uncertain futures. Each individual detained costs nearly £40,000 a year. Against this background our respective inspectorates worked together on this, the first thematic inspection conducted jointly by HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI). Inspectors from both organisations examined in detail the quality and effectiveness of immigration casework and the human experiences that lay beneath the files and targets. In total, 81 detainees were interviewed, and their case files assessed. They included people held under immigration powers for both under and over six months to obtain a representative sample of cases. The most prominent themes to emerge from the interviews with detainees were physical and mental health problems, lack of contact with families, and the stress of long-term detention in the context of difficulties faced in accessing good quality legal services. An examination of case files helped us to understand the reasons for initial and continued detention. In most cases we examined, the decision to detain was defensible and properly evidenced, and most were progressed diligently and in line with legal and policy guidelines. However, given the importance of the decision to remove a person’s liberty, we were concerned to find that in a quarter of the cases we reviewed, insufficient progress had been made with the person’s case. Most of our sample comprised ex-prisoners. Of these, we identified a number of instances where more could have been done to resolve their cases before the end of their custodial sentences. This is particularly disappointing given the ICIBI’s finding in its report on the United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA)’s handling of foreign national prisoners, that delays in decision making were potentially resulting in individuals being detained for longer than necessary.1 In some cases, we also found that decisions to detain a person, or to maintain their detention, had not been made with reference to all relevant factors. In addition, monthly progress reports to detainees in some cases repeated information previously provided, rather than giving a meaningful update on what, if any, progress had occurred. Detainees experienced considerable difficulties in obtaining good quality legal advice and many had not applied for bail to an immigration judge. Decisions to detain ex-prisoners were made at lower management level, while decisions to release had to be authorised by a member of the UKBA board. We remain concerned that UKBA has not implemented the recommendation in the ICIBI’s report on foreign national prisoners that it should change the level of authorisation required to release such individuals in line with its own policy, which presumes release at the end of their custodial sentences. We were also disturbed to find cases where there was a failure to consider evidence of posttraumatic stress and mental disorder in case reviews. This is in the context of recent judgments against UKBA establishing that four people suffering from mental illnesses were unlawfully detained and subject to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There was little evidence of the effectiveness of Detention Centre Rule 35 procedures, which are supposed to provide safeguards for vulnerable detainees, including those who have experienced torture and have mental illnesses. In one case a torture survivor was detained without it being at all clear what the exceptional circumstances were that led to his detention. We identified a similar case involving a victim of trafficking. Despite much effort at improving the system, we believe that further work is required. It is questionable whether the length of detention in some cases was necessary or proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining immigration control. The evidence of poor casework needs to be addressed at every level; casework must be appropriately skilled and resourced, and subject to more effective quality assurance. Although all immigration detainees have a right to apply for bail to the courts, there is currently no routine independent system of reviewing cases that can identify and correct what we found during this thematic inspection. We have therefore recommended that an independent panel should be established to review the cases of all individuals who are held for lengthy periods. Where the panel recommends release, UKBA would be required to review the case and publish its response. We believe this would motivate change in the system, and ensure that some of the shortcomings that we have identified here are addressed. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 2012. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/immigration-detention-casework-2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/thematic-reports-and-research-publications/immigration-detention-casework-2012.pdf Shelf Number: 127287 Keywords: Illegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |
Author: Campbell, Sarah Title: Fractured Childhoods: The separation of families by immigration detention Summary: Under s55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the UK Border Agency has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, this report presents evidence of cases in which the Border Agency repeatedly failed to safeguard children when making decisions to detain their parents, with appalling consequences for the children concerned. Research was carried out into the cases of 111 parents who were separated from 200 children by immigration detention between 2009 and 2012. 85 of these children were in fostering arrangements or local authority care during their parents’ detention. Parents were detained without time limit, for an average of 270 days. In 92 out of 111 cases, parents were eventually released, their detention having served no purpose. In 15 cases, parents were deported or removed from the UK without their children. It is difficult to imagine any other situation where children in the UK could be separated from their parents indefinitely and have such scant attention paid to their welfare. From 1st April 2013, Legal Aid ceased to be available to the vast majority of people making immigration claims. The complexity of immigration law means that it is extremely unlikely that parents will be able to successfully represent themselves. Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) therefore anticipates that we will be dealing with very many more cases where parents are separated from their children by detention and removal from the UK. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2013. 126p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/digital_assets/WEB_VERSION_FULL_REPORT.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cypnow.co.uk/digital_assets/WEB_VERSION_FULL_REPORT.pdf Shelf Number: 128490 Keywords: Child WelfareIllegal ImmigrationImmigrant ChildrenImmigrant Detention (U.K.) |
Author: Oakley, Sharon Title: Working Against the Clock : Inadequacy and injustice in the fast track system. Based on research by Bail for Immigration Detainees at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre in March 2006 Summary: Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) is an independent charity that aims to improve access to bail for all immigration detainees, to ensure that detention is subject to regular, independent, automatic review, and to end arbitrary detention in the United Kingdom. BID opposes the increasing use of detention in the UK. Where detention is to be used, BID calls for changes to bring the UK into line with human rights standards so that individuals are protected from arbitrary and prolonged detention by effective and accessible legal safeguards. Appeals for help from immigration detainees provided the primary incentive for this research. In the months preceding this study, BID was contacted by hundreds of men and women detained at Harmondsworth and Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) while their cases were ‘fast-tracked’ under the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (Fast Track Procedure) Rules 2005. An increasing number of these immigration detainees were appealing to BID for help and complaining about the inadequacies and injustices of the fast track system. Working against the clock is a unique research project commissioned by BID and carried out largely by volunteers. It is the first piece of research to present a focused analysis of the fast track system at Harmondsworth IRC, based upon court observation and interviews with detainees and legal representatives. The Government carried out an evaluation of the pilot phase of the fast track procedure at Harmondsworth IRC in September 2003. The results of the evaluation were not made available to the public, but BID was able to obtain a copy of the evaluation by filing a Freedom of Information (FOI) disclosure request. Unfortunately, a significant amount of the report was blacked out, rendering the contents of the report obscure and its findings largely unfathomable.1 Working against the clock presents an analysis of the fast track system, using a small sample of cases to illustrate a range of issues, whilst providing a forum for the voices of immigration detainees and their legal representatives. The findings set out in this report present deplorable inadequacies and injustices in the fast track process. The concluding recommendations to the Immigration Service, Legal Services Commission, Immigration Judges, legal representatives, the public and detainees represent a powerful call for radical changes to this system. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2006. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: www.biduk.org Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 128496 Keywords: BailIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |
Author: Cutler, Sarah Title: “Refusal Factory”: Women’s experiences of the Detained Fast Track asylum process at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre Summary: This report by BID is a very welcome piece of research giving testimony to the experiences of many hundreds of women who are subject to the Home Office Super Fast Tracking procedure. Many of these women’s voices would otherwise go unheard, silenced in this country as they have often been in their own countries. The UK has committed to a “fair, fast and firm” asylum policy, however the detention and fast tracking of women has serious implications for the equity of the asylum process.As shown in the report many women are denied access to quality legal representation from within detention centres. Women are frequently denied access to appropriate health care. Medical and psychological consequences of grave human rights violations often remain undetected and many women fear to disclose histories of sexual assault and rape from within detention. All of the above impact upon the judiciousness of the asylum process. As such the quality of initial decision making will inevitably be influenced, as indeed will the ability of decision makers to make a judicious decision in the absence of a full and carefully prepared account of events. Amnesty International has already identified serious problems with the quality of initial decision making (Amnesty International, 2004) and there is a wealth of research pointing towards delayed disclosures in the aftermath of sexual violence (Henry, N.M. 2005 Disclosure, sexual violence and international jurisprudence.University of Melbourne). The dangers of the DFT system highlighted in this report are in line with The Helen Bamber Foundation’s own experience of working with women who have been through the DFT.Many of the women with whom we are currently working, following arduous legal wrangles to release them from the DFT process, are survivors of horrific human rights violations, including rape, torture, sex trafficking, gender specific violence, genocide and war related violence.Their experiences of the DFT have often been experienced as a continuation of abuses already endured in the form of a denial of respect for their humanity. In our experience, disclosure is inhibited by the detention environment, access to essential healthcare services is patchy and women’s health complaints frequently go undiagnosed. In particular, symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder often remain undetected and women’s mental health frequently deteriorates in the detention environment. Women seeking asylum have endured multiple bereavements and separations. Within detention any relationships established are likely to be severed, either by deportation or release. As such, women who remain for long periods in detention find it very difficult to form and maintain relationships for fear that any sense of camaraderie will abruptly come to an end. Furthermore the deprivation of liberty of innocent people runs against the fundamental principle of our rule of law. The UK has a responsibility to protect survivors of torture and we call upon the government to take this responsibility seriously. Effective border control should not detract from this responsibility. This report should make essential reading for government policy makers, Home Office decision makers,members of the judiciary and the voting public. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2007. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2013 at: Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 128497 Keywords: BailIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |
Author: Campbell, Sarah Title: Last Resort or First Resort? Immigration detention of children in the UK Summary: In 2009 more than 1,000 children in the UK were detained with their families for the purposes of immigration control (Home Office 2010a). Medical studies have found that detention is associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, suicidal ideation, self-harm and developmental delay in children (Lorek et al 2009; Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 2004; Mares and Jureidini 2004; Steel et al 2004). The attempted suicide of a 10-year-old girl in immigration detention in the UK in 2009 provided a stark reminder of the implications of these research findings (Taylor 2009). The then Labour government justified the detention of children on the basis that it was used only as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time (Hansard HC 12 October 2009, Col 534W). It argued that in cases where families were detained, this was necessary for the purposes of immigration control for three main reasons: first, to prevent families absconding; second, to effect the imminent removal of families from the UK; and third, that if these families were not detained in order to be forcibly removed, they would have refused to leave the UK voluntarily (Home Office 2002, 4.77; Home Affairs Committee 2009, Q25; Byrne 2008). In order to examine the validity of these reasons for detaining families, Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and The Children’s Society carried out detailed research into the cases of 82 families with 143 children who were detained during 2009, using data from 82 clients’ case files, interviews with 30 family members and 27 legal representatives, and full Home Office files for 10 families. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees' The Children's Society, 2011. 102p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 25, 2013 at: www.biduk.org Year: 2011 Country: United Arab Emirates URL: Shelf Number: 128498 Keywords: Children of ImmigrantsIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |
Author: Bail for Immigration Detainees Title: Denial of Justice: the hidden use of UK prisons for immigration detention Summary: Being detained and losing one's liberty is bad enough when a person is held in an immigration removal centre, but immigration detention in a prison is unfair and unjust from the start. Detainees held in the prison estate suffer from multiple, systemic, and compounding barriers to accessing justice, with an often devastating effect on their ability to progress their immigration case, seek independent scrutiny of their ongoing detention from the courts and tribunals, and seek release from detention, as well as on their physical and mental wellbeing. This report describes these practical barriers, which include but are not limited to: - No automatic access to on-site immigration legal advice like that provided for detainees in IRCs. - The existence of financial disincentives to legal aid providers who wish to work with detainees in prisons under current Legal Aid Agency contracts. - Immigration detainees routinely held under serving prisoner regimes. - Prison regimes and restrictions that preclude the holding of mobile phones, adequate access to wing telephones during working hours, and a slow internal postal system in prisons, which delay and frustrate timely communication with legal advisers, the courts, and the Home Office. - Lack of internet access in prisons which hinders legal research for unrepresented detainees, and makes cooperation with the Home Office redocumentation process very difficult - Home Office escorting failures resulting in failure to produce detainees at bail hearings. - Time limited videolink connections to prisons. - Delays in receipt of Home Office bail summaries as a result of slow internal mail in prisons. - Loss of grants of Home Office Section 4 (1)(c ) bail accommodation as a result of production failures and listing delays, sometimes after several months waiting for a grant of a bail address. - Home Office failure to provide travel warrants enabling detainees held in prisons and produced in person at hearing centres to reach their Home Office Section 4(1)(c) bail address if granted bail. - Failure to fit electronic tags within the prescribed two working days resulting in extended detention in prison. Details: London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2014. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 1, 2014 at: http://www.biduk.org/162/bid-research-reports/bid-research-reports.html Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.biduk.org/162/bid-research-reports/bid-research-reports.html Shelf Number: 133519 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (U.K.)Immigration |