Last updated: October 2016

United Kingdom Immigration Detention Profile

• Introduction
• Laws, Policies, Practices
• Detention Infrastructure
• Download PDF of 2016 Profile
• Download PDF of 2011 Profile

INTRODUCTION

The United Kingdom has one of the largest immigration detention systems in Europe, confining up to 4,000 people—including children—in detention every day under Immigration Act powers.[1] As of October 2016, the country’s immigration detention estate included nine “immigration removal centres” (IRCs) and a small number of residential immigration detention holding facilities.[2] In addition, several hundred people are kept in prisons under Immigration Act powers awaiting deportation after having finished their criminal sentences.[3]

According to Home Office statistics, during the year ending in March 2016, 32,163 persons entered immigration detention, of whom 32,610 left detention and 2,925 remained in detention (these numbers do not include the 363 people held in the prison system under Immigration Act powers).[4] There has been a marked increase in detention numbers over the years. In the year ending March 2012, 27,594 entered detention.[5] The increasing numbers largely parallel increases in the UK’s detention capacity, which has risen sharply since 1993, when total capacity was only 250.[6]

As immigration detention has grown in the UK it has come under increasing public scrutiny, a point that was underscored with the January 2016 release of an independent review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention commissioned by the Home Office. Commonly referred to as the “Shaw Review,” the landmark report called for reducing “boldly and without delay” the detention of certain populations, an overhaul of the management of immigration casework, as well as a host of additional reforms.[7]

Among the vulnerable groups highlighted in the review were pregnant women and children. It called for banning the detention of pregnant women. It also contended that the Cedars family “pre-departure” facility was too expensive for the purposes it served, although the report did not call for ending the detention of children. Shortly after the release of the report, the Home Office announced a number of reforms, but it pushed back against a complete ban on the detention of pregnant women.[8] It also later announced that it would replace the Cedars facility with a “discrete unit” within the Tinsley House IRC near Gatwick Airport.[9]

Other issues that have attracted criticism include: the role of private security companies in managing detention centres, the increasing instances of detention of ex-criminal foreigners after they have served their criminal sentences, and the lack of limits on the length of detention. Many of these issues were highlighted in an important 2015 report titled the “Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom,” part of a joint inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees & the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration (APPGs). Among its key conclusions were that the country should cease indefinite detention and impose a time limit of 28 days.[10] 

Observers frequently point to the prison-like features of immigration detention in the UK, including both architectural similarities and “conceptual parities,” which make it arguably a form of punishment even if officially it is not recognized as such. As one scholar writes, “Staff and detainees regularly refer to IRCs as prisons. For detainees, confinement is punitive, even though it is an administrative measure.”[11]

The UK has also received criticism from UN monitoring bodies that have called for a statutory limit on the duration of immigration detention, for detention to be a measure of last resort, and for reforms to the now-defunct Detained Fast Track system.[12] The Detained Fast Track System was initially implemented in 2005 with the aim of accelerating asylum applications and appeals.[13] The system received widespread criticism because of its application of accelerated procedures, failure to identify vulnerable asylum seekers, and an asylum refusal rate of 99 per cent. After successful legal challenges by Detention Action and other groups, the Minister for Immigration announced the suspension of the system in July 2015.[14]

The growing notoriety of these detention policies has helped spur the adoption of important changes to detention procedures, which are provided in the Immigration Act 2016, and “detention service orders” that provide guidance to Home Office staff. Two key changes are the provision of automatic bail hearings after four months in detention and limiting the detention of pregnant women to 72 hours, though subject to extension. 

Many observers, however, have expressed disappointment that the new Immigration Act does not go far enough in its reforms. In a statement released shortly after the Immigration Act received “royal assent” in May 2016, the APPGs said: “We are disappointed that the Government continues in its opposition to an overall time limit, despite the growing evidence that indefinite detention has an extremely negative mental health impact, costs more to the public purse and is less effective than alternative immigration enforcement models. We are also disappointed that the Government has not accepted our case for an absolute exclusion of pregnant women from detention.”[15]

LAWS, POLICIES, PRACTICES

Key norms. An expert with the UK Prison Inspectorate writes that detention “is a relatively recent part of the state’s response to unwanted migration.”[16] A series of immigration-related laws, beginning with the 1905 Aliens Act, have provided detention measures. However, it is only since the 1962 Aliens Act “that attempts to limit immigration have become more serious and systematic, with the first immigration detention centres opening in the 1970s.”[17]

The 1971 Immigration Act first introduced administrative detention for those denied entry to the country.[18] The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 includes a long section on detention and removal. More recently, in May 2016, the Immigration Act 2016 became law. It provides a number of previously non-existent safeguards, including automatic bail hearings and limits to the length of detention of pregnant women.

The 1984 judgment in Hardial Singh is considered to be a critical legal case concerning immigration detention. The Shaw Review states, “In broad terms, this says that the power to detain is to be strictly and narrowly understood: that is, if detention is not for a statutory purpose it is unlawful, and the power is limited to such period that is reasonably necessary for that purpose to be achieved.”[19]

Immigration Act 2016. In May 2015, a new Immigration Bill implementing various policies of the Conservative Party and proposals from UK Prime Minister David Cameron was announced. Building on the Immigration Act 2014, the 2015 bill aimed to restrict access to services for undocumented migrants. In addition, support for migrants whose asylum claims have been unconfirmed would be restricted to only those who are “poor and face a genuine problem in leaving the UK.”[20] On the other hand, the bill proposed some important reforms in response to criticism of the country’s detention system. In May 2016, a text of the Immigration Bill that had been agreed on by both Houses of Parliament received “royal assent” and became law, the Immigration Act 2016.[21]

Numerous critics have argued that the law victimizes immigrants and reveals a lack of official understanding regarding the undocumented migrant population in the UK.[22] The Migrants’ Rights Network has argued that it could lead to “an unprecedented expansion of the powers of immigration officials to detain individuals, to seize property, and to otherwise interfere with everyday activities.”[23]

Removals, detention, and UK Visas and Immigration. The Home Office is the authority with legal custody over immigration detainees, although operations at detention centres are contracted to various governmental and private entities.[24] Previously, the Home Office’s UK Border Agency (UKBA) was primarily responsible for immigration detention. In 2013, UKBA was closed and its responsibilities taken over by two directorates, Immigration Enforcement and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI), both of which are part of the Home Office.[25] UKVI describes itself as being “responsible for making millions of decisions every year about who has the right to visit or stay in the country, with a firm emphasis on national security and a culture of customer satisfaction for people who come here legally.” Immigration Enforcement is “responsible for preventing abuse, tracking immigration offenders and increasing compliance with immigration law. It works with partners such as the police to regulate migration in line with government policy, while supporting economic growth.”

Unauthorized immigrants who are not in detention are given the option to depart the country voluntarily, either independently or with the support of an assisted voluntary return programme (AVR). AVR was overseen by Refugee Action until November 2015, when the Home Office decided to take it over.[26] The decision was criticized by Refugee Action and other organisations because many migrants claim that they do not trust a government-run service.[27]

Detention under Immigration Act powers is administrative and, therefore, should not be punitive.[28] According to the UK Visa and Immigration’s Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, “Detention must be used sparingly, and for the shortest period necessary.”[29] Nevertheless, the United Kingdom is the only European Union member state not to have imposed limits on the length of time a person can spend in immigration detention. However, the statutory power of detention has been somewhat limited through jurisprudence, most significantly in the Hardial Singh decision, which provides that the power to detain should be strictly and narrowly understood. This means that if the detention is not for a statutory purpose then it is unlawful and the power to detain is limited to the period reasonably necessary for the statutory purpose to be achieved.[30] Hardial Singh further provides that, “Where there is no prospect of removing the deportee within a reasonable time, then detention becomes arbitrary and consequently unlawful … and the deportee must be released immediately.”[31]

Since 2009, the High Court has found that long-term detention breaches the principles outlined in the Hardial Singh decision, but the threshold has been set very high and it is nearly impossible for migrants to know when their detention will become unlawful. For example, despite these principles the High Court has held that detention for multiple years can be lawful in certain cases.[32]

Grounds for detention. Citing Article 16 of the Immigration Act 1971, the Home Office states that “detention is most usually appropriate: to effect removal; initially to establish a person's identity or basis of claim; or where there is reason to believe that the person will fail to comply with any conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release.”[33] Articles 16 (2) and 30 of the 1971 act also include provisions for detention for failing to respect non-custodial measures.  Article 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for detention for unlawful stay and various rules and instructions provide for detention prior to deportation for unauthorised stay and following a criminal conviction.[34]

Criminalisation. The Immigration Act provides a number of offences that are subject to criminal procedures and penalties, including several (under Section 24) that are related specifically to status-related violations. Penalties under Section 24 include a fine of up to £5,000 or a six-month prison term.[35] The Asylum and Immigration Act of 2004 also introduced criminal penalties for non-citizens who do not cooperate with efforts to obtain travel documents necessary for removal procedures.

Discussing the catalogue of offenses in UK immigration law, a briefing paper by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford states: “The period between 1999 and 2009 witnessed the fastest and largest expansion of the list of immigration crimes since 1905. Since 1999 new legislation has created 84 new immigration offences, more than double the number of offences that had been created since 1905.”[36]

However, recent statistics about the application of criminal measures are sparse, possibly in part because the Office for National Statistics has declined to provide updated versions of its Control of Immigration reports since 2006, which provided statistics on the numbers of “persons proceeded against” for Immigration Act offenses.[37]

The most recent figures reported by the Migration Observatory (in 2013) come from 2011, when 490 people were convicted of immigration offences in magistrate courts and crown courts.[38] According to this report, 261 people were convicted of “assisting unlawful immigration to member state”; 145 for “seeking leave to enter or remain or postponement of revocation by deception”; 84 for “begin unable to produce an immigration document at a leave or asylum interview”; and 69 for unspecified other offenses.

According to the 2006 ONS Control of Immigration report, “Provisional data for January to October 2006 show that 868 persons were proceeded against at magistrates’ courts for offences under the Immigration Acts 1971 to 2004. ... 676 (78 per cent) of the defendants at magistrates’ courts were found guilty of immigration offences by these courts between January and October 2006.”[39]

According to separate statistics provided by the Ministry of Justice, during the period 2004-2008 there were nearly 3,800 convictions for offences under the Immigration Acts (including cases in both the crown courts and the magistrates courts). Of these, only a few hundred involved status-related violations.[40]

In a 2010 update of its online legal guidance, the Crown Prosecution Service stated, “In cases where the offence is trivial and action has or will be taken by the immigration authorities, the public interest may not be served by a prosecution.” It also highlighted the “need to balance questions of delay, remands in custody, and likely sentence against the gravity of the offence and any other compelling public interest consideration that may require a prosecution.”[41]

In 2010, the Ministry of Justice and UKBA introduced a pilot policy on “simple cautions for foreign national offenders” that was aimed at “divert[ing] from prosecution foreign national offenders who commit specified offences relating to their immigration status and agree to be administratively removed from the UK.” According to a policy statement about the pilot project, one of the aims of the policy was to “reduce the burden on the criminal justice system and UKBA from dealing with foreign national offenders who commit specified offences and are liable to be removed from the UK.”[42]

In a 2011 comment on the policy, Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) raised a number of concerns about the “scheme,” which was initially introduced at Heathrow and Stanstead airports and targeted people using false documents. Stated BID: “We agree with the basic sentiment of diverting foreign nationals from prosecution and the prison estate for certain document fraud offences. For those that have no legal basis to remain here and as a result face administrative removal from the UK it appears sensible to remove a period of imprisonment, which comes with a financial cost to the state and a personal cost to the individual. However, this diversion scheme appears to involve a significant risk of bypassing due process.”[43]

Detention of children. The immigration detention of children has undergone reforms in recent years, which have led to significant decreases in the number of child detainees. According to Home Office statistics, 1,119 children were placed in detention in 2009, while in the year ending in March 2016 only 110 children entered detention.[44]

In 2010, the government announced to great fanfare that it would end the detention of children and established a new policy for the treatment of families.[45] Despite the claims about ending the detention of children, the practice has persisted, prompting criticism at both the national and international levels. In 2016, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child called on the UK to “cease the detention of asylum-seeking and migrant children.”[46]

As part of the 2010 reforms, families with an irregular status are dealt with under a separate regime, which includes an Independent Family Returns Panel that advises on removal proceedings for families and children as well as specialized family caseworkers.[47]

Also, in 2011, in an effort to accommodate families without detaining children, the government announced the opening of Cedars pre-departure facility and the expansion and renovation of Tinsley House.[48] Cedars and Tinsley House would be able to hold families for up to 72 hours, but with a ministerial declaration the confinement period could extend to a week in exceptional cases.[49] Observers contended at the time that this still constituted detention. Commented an analyst at the Centre for Migration Policy Research, “If the Government has decided, as it appears to have done, that it cannot end the detention of children—or is unwilling to do so—then it should acknowledge that this is the case and be prepared to be challenged. … To repackage detention as ‘pre-departure accommodation’ is disingenuous.”[50]

In July 2016, the government announced that it would close the Cedars facility, citing the Shaw Review’s conclusion that it was not cost-effective. It said that Cedars would be replaced with a “new pre-departure accommodation near Gatwick Airport, as a discrete unit at Tinsley House immigration removal centre.”[51]

The private charity Barnardo’s, which operated within Cedars, working alongside Immigration Officers and G4S, opposed the decision, saying in a statement that it did “not feel that the new proposed accommodation is in the best interests of the children.”[52] Observers noted that Tinsley House is “a secure detention centre surrounded by a chain-link fence, run by G4S that resembles a prison.”[53] A Labour MP, noting that the announcement was made on the day before Parliament recessed for summer, commented:  “On the last day of Parliament, Ministers quietly abandoned the promise to end the immigration detention of children. Totally indefensible.”[54]

Under the Immigration Act 2014, unaccompanied children may only be held for a maximum of 24 hours at a short-term holding facility and only if the following two conditions are met: (1) directions are in force that require the child to be removed from the short-term holding facility within the relevant 24 hour period, or a decision on whether or not to give directions is likely to result in such directions; and (2) the immigration officer with the authority to detain the child reasonably believes that the child will be removed from the short-term holding facility within the relevant 24-hour period.[55]

The government has explored a range of alternative measures for families who “have no right to be in the UK” but “refuse to depart” and thus qualify for “ensured return.”[56] These alternatives include “open accommodation,” semi-secure “pre-departure accommodation,” and several pilot projects that seek to make use of existing accommodation schemes that house asylum seekers in the community.[57] Observers have criticised some of these “alternatives” as amounting to detention.[58] (For more about the various facilities used for these cases, see “Detention Infrastructure” below.)

On the other hand, some analysts have highlighted the positive impact of the 2010 policy. An inspector for HMIP wrote in 2013, “While families with children continue to be detained, fewer children are held for shorter periods, and in better conditions. The number of children entering detention was 53 in the first quarter of 2012, which is a substantial reduction on the many hundreds of children routinely held each quarter under the old system.”[59]

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported in 2015 that children, particularly those arriving from war-torn countries like Syria and Afghanistan, are routinely misclassified by border and asylum officers as being adults and are subsequently detained in adult detention centres despite clear evidence that they are children and without referring their cases to social services, as provided for in government guidelines. The Refugee Council found that at least 127 children had been found misclassified as adults since 2010, although some believe that number to represent “merely the tip of the iceberg.”[60]

Upon arriving in the UK, asylum seekers are assessed by immigration officers in an initial screening interview, during which government guidelines provide that children should be referred to social services for an official age assessment. If a person’s appearance or demeanour “very strongly suggests that they are significantly over 18 years of age” then immigration officials can decide to send them to a detention centre.[61] However, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that only one in 10 immigration officers had sufficient child safety training.[62]

As of January 2016, families were being detained in Tinsley House, Cedars, Dover Dock, Heathrow Terminal 2, and Cayley House.[63]

Detention of asylum seekers. Asylum seekers may be detained “pending examination, pending a decision whether to remove, and pending removal.”[64] In addition, those asylum seekers who have passed through other European countries on their way to the United Kingdom may be detained awaiting return to their first country of entry in the European Union (EU), in accordance with the Dublin regulation, which provides that asylum seekers must make their claims in the first country of entry in the EU.[65]

In 1998, the UK government issued a white paper titled “Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum,” which sought to distinguish between the detention of unauthorized immigrants and asylum seekers. It stressed that temporary admission or release was the preferred measure for asylum applicants, and that detention should be used only as a last resort—after alternatives to detention have been considered.[66]

However, in 2014, a total of 14,056 asylum seekers were detained.[67] Further, observers estimate[68] that people claiming asylum accounted for some 60 percent of the immigration detainee population in 2013.[69] According to Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), “42 percent of asylum seekers detained in the UK go on to be released, their detention having served no purpose other than wasting human lives and taxpayers’ money.”[70]

In 2005, the UK government announced that it would process 30 percent of new asylum claims through a “detained fast track” system.[71] The system received enormous criticism, including from UNHCR, which stated that “inappropriate cases are being routed to and remaining within the detained fast track.”[72] In its 2011 publication “Fast Track to Despair,” Detention Action reported that 99 percent of asylum seekers processed through Detained Fast Track were refused asylum. This compared to an overall refusal rate in the UK system of 72 percent. Additionally, “while 22 days are allocated for the process to be completed, in reality, asylum seekers on the Detained Fast Track usually spend substantially longer in detention.”[73] In both 2015 and 2013, the UK came under criticism from two authoritative UN monitoring bodies that called for reforms of the Detained Fast Track system and for vulnerable persons and torture survivors not to be routed through the system.[74]

Detention Action legally challenged the detained fast track system in 2014.[75] In this case, the UK Court of Appeal held that the practice of detaining asylum seekers while their appeals were pending was unlawful because the decision to continue detention was based only on considerations of speed and convenience without considering a risk of absconding.[76] In a second case brought by Detention Action in 2015, the Court of Appeal held that the detained fast track system was structurally unfair and unjust.[77]

On 2 July 2015, the Minister of State for Immigration announced the temporary suspension of the system.[78] The Secretary of State for the Home Department requested permission to appeal the 2015 decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. However, on 12 November 2015, the Supreme Court denied the government’s permission to appeal, rendering the Court of Appeal’s judgment definitive.[79]

Detention of women. Women held in immigration detention in the UK represent a particularly vulnerable group. Issues faced by women in detention include depression, miscarriages, and sexual abuse. Most women are detained at Yarl’s Wood IRC, with small numbers held for up to a week in Colnbrook IRC in a separate unit, and for longer at Dungavel IRC where they mix with men.[80]

An unannounced visit to Yarl’s Wood IRC by the HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) in 2015 revealed that 45 percent of women feel unsafe at the detention centre, in part because the number of violent incidents had increased since 2013.[81] A study conducted by Women for Refugee Women found that 93 percent of women interviewed felt depressed in detention and more than half had considered committing suicide.[82]

More than 85 percent of the women interviewed by Women for Refugee Women also reported having been raped or tortured, with many describing sexual harassment at Yarl’s Wood as widespread.[83] During a visit to the UK in 2014, the UN Special Rapporteur (SR) on Violence against Women was prevented from visiting Yarl’s Wood IRC, which has been managed by the private prison company Serco since 2007. Despite the SR’s repeated requests, the UK government failed to comply with the terms of reference for UN fact-finding missions and the SR was informed by the centre’s director that “instructions had been received to deny entry” to her.[84]

Many women feel that those working at the detention centres do not fully understand their needs as detainees. The HMIP’s visit to Yarl’s Wood IRC found that there were too many men on staff, which resulted in men being used inappropriately, such as to fill healthcare roles, or certain processes being delayed until female staff were available.[85] Healthcare for women in detention was repeatedly criticised as deficient. Women interviewed by the HMIP were “overwhelmingly negative about access, quality of care and delayed medication.” In addition, “Care planning for women with complex needs was so poor it put them at risk.”[86] Pregnant women in particular have experienced stillbirths, miscarriages, and acute psychosis while being held in detention.[87]

The detention of pregnant women has been the subject of widespread opprobrium. The UK government has argued that it is vital for the Home Office to have the ability to detain pregnant women for short periods of time and as a last resort in order to be able to quickly remove them or if they present a risk to the public.[88] There must be exceptional reasons to justify the detention of a pregnant woman, unless there is a clear prospect of early removal and medical advice suggests no question of confinement prior to detention, although “there is little to suggest that pregnant women are being detained only in exceptional circumstances.”[89]

On 18 April 2016, the UK Home Office announced that it would adopt a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women, which could be extended up to a week in total with ministerial authorisation.[90] The government claims this proposed change will “provide an additional safeguard in any case involving a pregnant woman being held at an immigration detention centre, before their removal from the country.”[91] However, one review found that the vast majority of pregnant detainees were ultimately released, suggesting that those women may not have been correctly detained in the first place.[92]

Judicial review and bail. According to schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 immigration bail may be granted in cases of “detention of persons liable to examination or removal”, and “detention pending deportation.” Although the Act provides for automatic bail hearings after four months in detention, there is no direct or automatic judicial oversight of the detention process. Detainees must actively challenge the lawfulness of their detention through judicial review and habeas corpus.[93] Limited availability of legal aid and funds combined with movement between detention centres can make high quality legal advice inaccessible for many detainees.[94] Detention Action notes that this legal advice can be crucial, as “14 percent of appeals were allowed where the asylum-seeker was represented, as opposed to 2 percent where they were unrepresented.”[95]

The Home Office has an obligation to review the reasons for detention each month, which has been described by the Supreme Court of the UK as an active safeguard against unlawful detention. An independent review of immigration detention commissioned on behalf of the Home Secretary found that, in practice, this review may be neglected, conducted hastily, or omitted entirely.[96] In this regard, the Home Office has been urged by the HMIP and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to address these issues by completing proper reviews of the basis for detention and granting release when it is found to be warranted.[97]

However, all detainees have the right to apply for bail at any time by submitting an application to the Chief Immigration Officer, who is part of the Home Office, or the First-Tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber.[98] Release rates, though, are low, particularly for detainees with criminal convictions.[99]

Applications for bail represent the only direct way that detainees can challenge their detention. The process is intended to allow detainees to access an independent judge with the power to overrule a detention order. In theory, this judge is required to presume in favour of defence, and the Home Office is required to justify the detention.[100] However, Asylum Aid reports that, in practice, the Home Office’s summary of the reasons for opposing bail is occasionally late or non-existent. A more significant issue is a reliance on standard reasons for opposing an individual’s bail without additional evidence showing that the reasons apply to the particular individual.[101]

A number of concerns have been raised about the UK bail process, including the lack of information about the system provided to detainees and limited access to professional legal assistance.[102] Detainees interviewed by the LDSG universally noted that they felt the bail courts to be “hostile” and that “their refusal was decided in advance.”[103] Concerns have also been raised over the routine use of video conference systems in bail hearings, allowing detainees to remain at the detention centre and attend their hearing remotely.[104] Although the use of video links avoids long journeys for detainees, issues such as lack of personal contact with the judge and problems with sound and visuals are considered to present obstacles to an effective hearing. Further, when video conference systems are used, the lawyer is allowed only 10 minutes to speak with the detainee prior to the hearing, which advocates argue is insufficient.[105]

Length of detention. The United Kingdom is the only EU member state without a legal limit on the period of immigration detention. The country opted out of the EU Return Directive, which includes an absolute maximum of 18 months for immigration detention.

While there is supposed to be an absolute time limit of five consecutive days for people detained in immigration offices at ports of entry, Short-term Holding Facilities (STHFs), police stations, or mobile detention facility vehicles,[106] there is no limit on the duration of detention in Immigration Removal Centres.

Concerns about UK’s indefinite detention policy were highlighted in an important 2015 report titled the “Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom,” which was the result of a joint inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees & the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration (APPGs). The report concluded that the country should cease indefinite detention and impose a time limit of 28 days.[107] 

Indefinite detention in the UK has also long been condemned by international human rights monitoring bodies, including the UN Human Rights Committee in 2015 and the UN Committee against Torture in 2013.[108] In his report on his June 2009 mission to the UK, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants recommended that the UK “take all necessary steps to prevent cases of de facto indefinite detention.”[109]

Re-entry ban. Breaches of UK’s immigration law can be sanctioned by re-entry ban for up to 10 years, including for: (a) overstaying; (b) breaching a condition attached to their leave; (c) being an “Illegal Entrant”; and (d) using deception in an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or remain (whether successful or not).[110]

Non-deportable detainees and indefinite detention. Detainees may remain in detention because removal to their home country is impossible due to risk of refoulement. Detainees with countries of origin such as Iraq and Somalia may only be returned to certain areas in their homeland, and are often reluctant to accept voluntary return given the significant safety concerns. Many of these detainees remain in detention indefinitely.[111]

Some detainees face problems with documentation because their embassies are slow in returning documentation or demand evidence of documents such as birth certificates, which detainees may not have access to. The LDSG notes that these difficulties render these detainees effectively “stateless,” and although they may be willing to accept voluntary return it is impossible for them to do so.[112] The Equal Rights Trust notes that “the practical inability to return to a country of origin has no effect on the individual’s immigration status in the UK.”[113]

Health concerns. Research has demonstrated that people placed in UK immigration-related detention often suffer serious mental health deterioration, including increased post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.[114] The 2016 Shaw Review contains an appendix written by a well-known Oxford criminologist who comprehensively reviewed available literature concerning the “impact of immigration detention on mental health.” The Shaw Review points to two key findings: (1) “There is a consistent finding from all the studies carried out across the  globe and from different academic viewpoints that immigration detention has a negative impact upon detainees’ mental health”; (2) “The impact on mental health increases the longer detention continues.”[115]

A 2009 study by the London Detainee Support Group (LDSG) revealed significant numbers of indefinite detainees developing mental health problems, self-harming, or attempting suicide.[116] From July to September 2014, there were 97 incidents of self-harm requiring medical attention in the UK’s immigration removal centres (IRCs).[117]

BID has noted a significant increase in suicides among immigration detainees. Whereas in the 14-year period 1989-2003 there were four self-inflicted deaths in custody, in the two-year period 2003-2005 there were seven.[118] In 2015, there were 393 suicide attempts in detention centres and a total of 2,957 detainees, including 11 children, were on suicide watch.[119]

Individuals with serious medical conditions, serious mental illness, or serious disabilities are detained unless the relevant condition cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention. However, many detention centres are not equipped to hold elderly people or individuals with disabilities and only a few IRCs have 24-hour healthcare available.[120] The UN Committee against Torture has expressed concern about this policy of detaining migrants with serious mental disabilities in particular.[121]

Rule 35 is a mechanism in the UK Detention Centre Rules that is meant to protect detainees whose health is likely to be “injuriously affected” by detention, survivors of torture, and detainees thought to have suicidal intentions.[122] Rule 35 requires IRC medical practitioners to inform the Home Office when these detainees are being held. Upon receipt of this information, the Home Office is obliged to review the individual’s detention and determine if release is appropriate.[123]

However, the Rule 35 process has faced criticism and its failings have been documented over time. HMIP has regularly criticised these failings and has found that “reports often fail to offer meaningful commentary and replies are dismissive.”[124] HMIP also expressed concern over the safeguard failing to protect individuals detained in prisons by being available only to those detainees held in IRCs.[125] Detention Action has noted that the common conclusion regarding the Rule 35 process is that it “simply does not work.”[126] In a 2013 report on the mental health of immigrants in detention, Medical Justice found that Rule 35 fails in practice because “forms are often not initiated when they would be appropriate, and then the majority appear ignored by the UKBA anyway.”[127]An audit of Rule 35 use in detention centres by the former UKBA found that only nine percent of Rule 35 reports led to the release of the detainee.[128]

A joint inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and the All Parliamentary Group on Migration found that the screening interviews that are conducted at the start of detention and meant to gain information about any health issues are “routinely tick-box processes that do not allow detainees to talk about possible concerns.” The inquiry also found that detainees describe the healthcare they receive in detention as inadequate.[129]

Detainees interviewed by BID reported that “the only health care on offer is painkillers”; one detainee noted “the difficulty … is getting a doctor to attend to your concerns, because most times you complain about something you’re only given paracetamol anyway.”[130] Discontent amongst inmates has also been displayed through riots and protests in detention centres. These protests have focused on issues such as limited access to legal advice and medical care.[131]

Children have exhibited severe and lasting psychological and physical trauma after being placed in UK detention centres. A 2010 report by the UK charity Medical Justice found that of 141 children studied during the period 2004-2010, “74 children were reported to have been psychologically harmed as a result of being detained. Symptoms included bed wetting and loss of bowel control, heightened anxiety, food refusal, withdrawal and disinterest, and persistent crying. 34 children exhibited signs of developmental regression, and six children expressed suicidal ideation either whilst or after they were detained. Three girls attempted to end their own lives. … 92 children were reported to have physical health problems which were either exacerbated, or caused by immigration detention. These problems included fever, vomiting, abdominal pains, diarrhoea, musculoskeletal pain, coughing up blood, and injuries as a result of violence.”[132]

Experts have also noted the negative psychological impact resulting from the UK practice of transferring detainees between removal centres. Discussing this practice, one scholar writes that an important “source of forced mobility associated with Removal Centres is the transfer of detainees from one Removal Centre to another for a variety of reasons, from the practical constraints imposed by the capacities of various centres, to differences in the conditions of centres themselves, which are used to form a reward and sanction mechanism among the detainee population.”[133] While these transfers still take place, sources in the UK told the GDP that they appear to have become less frequent in recent years.

Foreign national offenders. In 2006, the Home Office introduced a policy of “presumption of detention” for people awaiting deportation after serving prison sentences. “As a result, detention was no longer used primarily for people about to be removed; instead, the priority became to detain ex-offenders, even where intractable obstacles to removal existed.”[134]

Unless they fall under one of the six exceptions provided in the UK Borders Act, foreign national prisoners (FNPs) who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 12 months are subject to deportation. Although these foreign offenders remain in prison under Immigration Act powers, they are not included in official detention statistics.[135] 

The Shaw Review revealed that the 20 longest stayers in IRC detention were ex-offenders. One man interviewed for the report had been in immigration detention since March 2010 after he was sentenced to four years imprisonment and his effective sentence expired two years later. A list provided by the UK National Offender Management Service showing establishments in which former foreign national offenders, held under immigration powers, were detained provided that on one day in Spring 2015, “there were 62 prisons in the list holding a total of 399 detainees.”[136]

The government argues that these detention measures are designed to protect the public against re-offences and absconding. Immigration detainees are also moved to prisons if they are deemed particularly violent or disruptive. The LDSG, however, argues that ex-offenders—in addition to losing their status in the UK and being detained under immigration law for periods that go far beyond their original criminal sentences—are denied “meaningful dialogue” with the government and are frequently embroiled in complicated processes that have little bearing on the resolution of their cases.[137] This can result in detainees remaining in prisons after finishing their custodial sentences.[138] Under the 2009 Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act, those people detained solely for immigration violations may be detained alongside criminal detainees.

Privatisation. The earliest UK immigration detention centres, opened in the 1970s, were run by the private sector. This decision was made with the view to ensure that non-prisoners would not be subject to the oppressive treatment criminals faced under the guard of prison or police officers.[139] Today, seven of the country’s immigration removal centres are managed by one of four private contractors: G4S, Serco, Mitie PLC, or GEO Group. The National Offender Management Service operates the two remaining facilities. In 2011, the contract for managing holding rooms, the non-residential short term holding facility, and the three residential short term holding facilities passed to Tascor.[140]

The privatisation of immigration detention in the UK has been the subject of widespread criticism, which has been spurred in part by the numerous official and media reports regarding assaults and beatings of detainees at the hands of private security guards during the detention and removal process. For example, in August 2015, two staff members at Yarl’s Wood detention centre, which is operated by Serco, were suspended following allegations of verbal abuse towards female detainees.[141]

In 2008, a coalition of NGOs detailed some 300 cases of alleged assaults that took place during 2004-2008. The allegations came from people from more than 41 countries, with the majority being made by African migrants. The report raised concerns about the complaints procedure within the centres, stating that the current procedure was largely ineffective.[142]

The death of an Angolan deportee Jimmy Mubenga in October 2010 led to rumours that Scotland Yard was considering filing corporate manslaughter charges against G4S, a security firm that operates two IRCs (Brook House and Tinsley House). Mubenga died while being deported and after being restrained by G4S guards, leading to allegations of “excessive force.”[143] Three guards were initially for the death on manslaughter charges.[144] The 2014 trial of the guards resulted in a not guilty verdict for all three even though an earlier inquest jury had concluded that Mubenga was unlawfully killed[145] and a coroner’s report that was withheld from the jury found that “endemic racism” among G4S staff was a factor.[146]

The UK government has tried to use the privately operated nature of facilities as a shield to protect itself from liability in cases concerning alleged unlawful detentions at such facilities. In the 2005 case of ID and others v. The Home Office, “The Home Office sought to argue that although an immigration officer (and the Home Office which has vicarious liability) had authorised the detentions of the D family it was not liable for false imprisonment for the detention as the physical detainer was a private contractor. The Court of Appeal … dealt with this matter quickly. It concluded that the detentions were caused by the immigration officers who authorised them and, although this authority protected the private contractor which detained, it did not protect the immigration officer if the giving of his/her authority was an unlawful act.”[147]

Importantly, the Court of Appeal also found in this case “that foreign nationals did not fall into a special category, emphasising the particular importance that the law attached to the liberty of the person and that it was beyond doubt that the rule of law extended not simply to British nationals but also to immigrants subject to administrative detention.”[148]

A 2005 study published by the University of Oxford Refugee Studies Centre reported that private companies that also operate prisons in other countries were persistent lobbyists in the arena of detention policy. Private contractors are provided with a fee per inmate per day, rendering immigration detention a lucrative business. According to study, “The growth of the detention regime is not based solely on ever-restrictive asylum laws and policies. Its growth can also be attributed to the involvement [of] private contractors, whose logic of response to asylum seekers has very little to do with the logic of the government’s response, concerned as they are with winning and maintaining contracts and keeping their facilities full.”[149]

In 2005, the UKBA issued the Detention Services Operating Standards Manual for Immigration Service Removal Centres in an effort to improve the performance of private contractors and bring them into compliance with UK policy. The standards, which build on the Detention Centre Rules, include details on the provision of legal services, accommodation, activities for detainees, admission and discharge protocol, the detention of female detainees, the provision of health care and a number of other areas of concern for detainees.[150] 

Private companies have also been criticised for their management of non-secure asylum housing facilities where people awaiting decisions on their asylum claims can be accommodated. In 2013, a Home Office committee was convened “to investigate why G4S and Serco had not fulfilled their contract to provide decent housing, while allowing subcontractors to bully tenants.”[151]

Monitoring and inspection. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), a government appointed human rights-based monitoring institution and coordinator of the the UK’s National Preventive Mechanism,[152] has the main responsibility for inspecting immigration detention centres and short-term holding facilities in the UK. The HMIP’s website provides access to detailed reports of its inspections. Every IRC is subject to an unannounced inspection at last once every four years.

According to a 2016 Working Paper for the Global Detention Project written by an HMIP inspector, the inspectorate’s duties “are laid out in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and include reporting on the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons, and submitting an annual report to Parliament. These duties were extended to immigration detention centres by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and to short-term immigration holding facilities and escort arrangements by the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The first inspections of immigration detention took place in 2002, although routine inspections began only in 2004.” (For an account of HMIPs work, see Hindpal Singh Bhui, “Can Inspection Produce Meaningful Change in Immigration Detention?” GDP Working Paper No. 12, May 2016.)

According to the Immigration and Asylum Act of 1999, an Independent Board must also monitor each IRC. These boards are composed of volunteers and draw from the communities in which the detention centres are located.[153]

DETENTION INFRASTRUCTURE

As of September 2016, there were more than a dozen facilities in operation in the UK that met the GDP's criteria for being listed as immigration detention sites: Nine long-term facilities called “Immigration Removal Centres”; three residential “Short-Term Holding Facilities” that can be used to confine people for up to seven days; and one “pre-departure” facility for families.[154] To this list one could add the various prisons that administratively detain non-citizens who have completed criminal sentences and are awaiting deportation.

Two of these facilities were slated for closure at the time of this publication: The Cedars family “pre-departure” facility and the Dungavel immigration removal centre.

The UK administrative immigration detention estate has grown considerably in recent decades. In 1993, it had a total capacity of 250.[155] By 2003, it was operating seven immigration removal centres with an estimated total capacity of 1,600; by 2011, the estate had grown to 15 facilities with a total estimated capacity of 3,500.[156] By 2015, the country’s immigration detention capacity had increased to approximately 4,270.[157] There are an estimated 400 additional spaces used in prisons.[158]

Non-citizens can also be held at immigration offices at ports of entry; control zones authorized in the Immigration Act 1971; premises of legal appeal; any police station or hospital; young offender institutions; prison or remand centres; or any vehicle that has been specifically designed or adapted for use as a mobile detention facility and approved by the secretary of state for such use.[159] Many holding facilities at ports of entry that are used for fingerprinting and identify checks have been criticized for detaining people for periods that are deemed excessively long given the nature of the facilities. One such facility is at Dover dock. Experts consider that this facility should be used for less than 24 hours, but evidence suggests many people are held for more than 36 hours.[160]

Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs). As of September 2016, the United Kingdom maintained nine IRCs: Brook House IRC (London Gatwick Airport, Gatwick); Campsfield House IRC (Kidlington, Oxon); Colnbrook IRC (Harmondsworth, West Drayton, Middlesex); Dungavel IRC (Strathaven, South Lanarkshire); Harmondsworth IRC (Harmondsworth, West Drayton); Morton Hall IRC (Swinderby, Lincolnshire); The Verne IRC (Portland, Dorset); Tinsley House IRC (Gatwick Airport, Gatwick); and Yarl’s Wood IRC (Clapham, Bedfordshire).[161]

The UK Home Office has stated that, on average, it costs £92.67 to keep someone in detention for one night, which amounts to nearly £34,000 per detainee/year.[162]

Seven IRCs—Brook House, Campsfield House, Colnbrook, Dungavel, Harmondsworth, Tinsley House, and Yarl’s Wood—are managed by one of four private contractors: G4S, Serco, Mitie PLC or GEO Group. The two remaining facilities—Morton Hall and the Verne—are operated by the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).[163]

According to the 2016 Shaw Review, the IRCs “differ in their size and physical security, and these factors have an influence upon the welfare issues that are the focus of this review. Dungavel, Campsfield House, and Tinsley House are relatively small and the perimeter security and internal zoning is relatively unobtrusive. The three NOMS-run centres: Dover [closed in 2015], Morton Hall and The Verne, all have significant open air space. In contrast, Brook House, Colnbrook, and Harmondsworth were constructed to category B prison standards, and are somewhat claustrophobic and have the ‘feel’ and look of contemporary gaols. Yarl’s Wood was rebuilt after the 2002 arson and disturbance, and is characterised amongst other things by long corridors and an absence of natural light.”[164]

(Detailed accounts on the operations of the IDCs can be found on the HMIP website as well as in the “Shaw Review.”)

Short-Term Holding Facilities. There are short-term hold facilities (STHFs) throughout the United Kingdom, many of them located in or near airports or other points of transit.[165] These STHFs are designed to facilitate further questioning of incoming passengers denied immediate entry into the country. Most of these centres are non-residential, and the typical stay is under 12 hours. There are, however, three “residential” STHFs in which people can be held for up to seven days.

There have been numerous complaints about conditions at STHFs, including poor lighting and ventilation, uncomfortable seating arrangements, and inadequate sleeping or washing facilities.[166]

The residential STHFs are designed to house people for up to five days, with the possibility of extension to seven days. The residential STHFs include Pennine House STHF (Terminal 2, Manchester Airport, Manchester) and Larne House STHF (Larne, Northern Ireland).[167] The Shaw Review highlighted that these two facilities operate without “statutory rules,” which it concluded “is not acceptable as a matter of good public administration.”

Non-residential STHFs include those located in or associated with airports, such as Birmingham Airport, London City Airport, Heathrow Airport Terminal 5, Heathrow Airport Terminal 4, and Heathrow Airport Terminal 3. During unannounced inspections by the HMIP, common issues at these non-residential STHFs included unnecessary attention being drawn to detainees as a result of escort staff wearing high visibility vests and escorted detainees being handcuffed regardless of the risk they posed and poor conditions, such as a lack of natural light and inadequate ventilation.[168]

Prisons and police stations. Various prisons and police stations in the United Kingdom are used for immigration detention purposes. Immigration detainees may be held in police stations for up to seven days.[169] Non-citizens who have completed criminal sentences can remain confined in prisons pending deportation for a number of reasons.

The government claims that “the routine use of prison accommodation to hold immigration detainees ended in 2002. Prison accommodation continues to be used for individual detainees, particularly foreign national offenders pending deportation on release from custodial sentences, for reasons of security and control in line with published criteria.”[170]

According to an agreement between the National Offender Management Service and the Home Office, there are up to 400 prison beds that can be used for immigration detainees.[171] The Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees estimates that the number of individuals is closer to 600.[172]

During an inspection of Wormwood Scrubs Prison in 2014, HM Inspectorate of Prisons found an immigration detainee who “had been held for 18 months after completing his sentence.” In 2013, inspectors at HMP Lincoln found six prisoners held for over and year, and one for over two years. Foreign prisoners are often informed that they will be detained under immigration powers “at the last minute” or “on the day they expected to be released.”[173] Further, detainees held in prisons face additional difficulties when compared to those detained in IRCs, including the lack of guaranteed access to legal advisors, severely limited telephone contact, and increased potential to face violent confrontations.[174]

Experts in the UK have argued that researching this aspect of immigration detention is hampered by a lack of data provided by government agencies.[175] Thus, it can be difficult to ascertain which prison facilities may be used routinely for immigration-related detention. Previously, scholars noted that the prison service preferred “to group its foreign national prisoners in a few establishments, rather than spread them out evenly across the entire penal estate.”[176] However, a an expert reviewer of this profile who provided comments on background told that GDP that although a “hubs and spokes” was intended to concentrate foreign national in fewer prisons, today they are “in fact spread throughout the estate.”

According to Home Office estimates more than 5,600 “foreign national offenders” were removed in 2015. Numbers have fluctuated between 4,600 and 5,600 since 2009. The Migration Observatory reports that there are gaps in data on deportations and removals, which indicate the number of rejected asylum applicants (5,238 in 2015) and foreign national prisoners, but do not disaggregate by reason for removal.[177]

“Accommodation” for children and families. The IRCs were previously equipped to house families. However, since legislative changes in 2010 that were purportedly intended to end the detention of children, families in irregular situations have been channelled to what the UK government deems non-custodial accommodations (see “Detention of children” above). As part of this policy, the government has explored a range of “alternative” forms of accommodation for families who qualify for “ensured return.”[178] These alternatives include “open accommodation,” semi-secure “pre-departure accommodation,” and several pilot projects that seek to make use of existing accommodation schemes which house asylum seekers in the community.[179]

One of the more controversial “alternatives” has been the “family friendly” Cedars pre-departure accommodation centre in Pease Pottage. According to immigration authorities, families are only “referred to Cedars on the advice of the Family Returns Panel, an independent body of child welfare experts, and will stay no more than 72 hours before their departure from the UK. In exceptional circumstances, with ministerial authority, this may be extended to 1 week.”[180] The facility is mainly intended for those families who “fail to co-operate with other options to leave the UK, such as the offer of assisted voluntary return.”[181]

Although the facility was designed as a secure detention facility, the GDP designates it a semi-secure site because it provides the possibility for freedom of movement and temporary exit for certain residents. According to the Home Office, “Families with children who are resident at Cedars can leave the facility for short periods of time to participate in an approved activity, subject to a risk assessment and suitable supervision.”[182]

Regarding conditions at Cedars, the Shaw Review reported that there appeared to be no reason “to doubt HM Chief Inspector of Prisons’s characterisation of Cedars as ‘an exceptional facility’ and ‘an example of best practice in caring for ... some of the most vulnerable people subject to immigration control.’”[183]  According to an official at HMIP “It is also important that other parts of the detention estate learn from Cedars. In particular, its open design and welfare orientation, and the ability to have effective immigration controls based on short periods of detention. It has been recognised that the open ended approach to child detention is not acceptable.”[184]

Cedars is privately operated. G4S provides security services, facilities management, and medical services. Barnardo’s—a British charity that cares for vulnerable children and young people—provides welfare and social care services.[185]

The Shaw Review called for closing Cedars, contending that it was prohibitively expensive.[186] Total costs for 2014-2015 were estimated to be £6,398,869. The centre held only 14 families that year, making the cost per family more than £450,000.[187] Reported Shaw: “[M]y overriding impression was of a misdirection of public money that could be better used for other purposes. The centre has had no residents on either of the two occasions I have visited.”[188]

In the summer of 2016, the UK government announced that Cedars pre-departure accommodation was to be closed and that families about to be removed would be held at new accommodations being prepared at the Tinsley House Removal Centre. According to BID, six years after the government’s pledge to end the detention of children, not only are children still detained, but housing families in an IRC would be a “fundamental and unacceptable reversal” and would expose children to damage.[189]

The planned refurbishment of IRC Tinsley House to serve as a “high security detention facility to accommodate families deemed too ‘disruptive’” for a pre-departure accommodation such as Cedars has long been controversial.[190] Families also continue to be detained for short periods at Dover Dock STHF, Heathrow Terminal 2, and Cayley House.[191]