header-logo header-logo

Detention fears for immigrants

30 November 2017
Issue: 7772 / Categories: Legal News , Legal aid focus , Legal services , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail
istock-508763108

Lawyers highlight lack of access to legal help & shocking rise in litigants in person

Judges, barristers, solicitors and immigration specialists have voiced a string of concerns about the government’s treatment of immigration detainees.

They spoke under conditions of strict anonymity for an independent study commissioned by the Bar Council and published this week, Injustices in Immigration Detention, written by Dr Anna Lindley of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.

The lawyers slated inflexible Home Office rules and target-obsessed officials, and complained of a lack of access to legal help for detainees.

Judges claimed Home Office officials give misleading information to tribunals and present them with ‘elliptical nonsense’ when challenging bail applications. Lawyers accused Home Office officials of overlooking key details, reluctance to disclose important information at tribunal hearings, incompetence and, as one barrister put it, being ‘on some sort of mission to imprison people’.

Lawyers giving evidence for the report highlighted the lack of access to legal help. One judge spoke of the ‘shocking’ rise in unrepresented litigants in person. In some areas, nearly a third of bail applicants were unrepresented.

Solicitors say the low means test for legal aid is a stumbling block for detainees—clients rarely have the necessary financial documents with them at their appointment, and often have difficulties accessing this information in detention.

Chair of the Bar Andrew Langdon QC said: ‘Dr Lindley’s research paints a picture of officials acting with little accountability, unable or unwilling to pursue obvious and viable alternatives to detention.

‘The quality of decision-making by immigration officers is exacerbated by the difficulties faced by detainees in obtaining legal advice and representation.’

A government spokesperson said: ‘Home Office Presenting Officers are provided with extensive training which includes specific training on bails and they do not have targets to keep people in detention. When assessing new work both the Legal Aid Agency and providers are obliged to ensure that clients meet the means and merits tests set out in regulations.

‘Most people detained under the Immigration Act powers spend only very short periods in detention. Factors that can lead to prolonged detention include a history of absconding, non-compliance with immigration processes and a prolific offending history.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll