*/
The UK’s reputation is at risk without reform to the government’s treatment of immigration detainees, the Bar Council warned.
A report commissioned by the Bar Council revealed the widespread concerns of judges and lawyers over the government’s treatment of immigration detainees.
Injustices in Immigration Detention, by Dr Anna Lindley of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, is based on a series of practitioner interviews. The report condemned the inflexible Home Office rules and target-obsessed officials, which according to one judge meant that ‘too many people are being banged up’.
Home Office bail summaries were universally lambasted and judges berated Home Office officials for giving misleading information to tribunals and for presenting them with ‘elliptical nonsense’ when challenging bail applications.
‘Some are quite good… others are incompetent, and some seem to be on some sort of mission to imprison people,’ said one barrister, echoing the perspective of many others.
Other interviewees criticised officials for adhering rigidly to ‘stupid’ codes, overlooking key details and being reluctant to disclose important information at tribunal hearings. Insufficient training and supervision were also blamed for wasting time and taxpayers’ money.
Bar Chair, Andrew Langdon QC said: ‘The Home Office is one of the great offices of state, but the quality of its decision-making is unacceptably poor. Dr Lindley’s research paints a picture of officials acting with little accountability, unable or unwilling to pursue obvious and viable alternatives to detention.’
He said: ‘If we cannot remove or detain people fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, we fail to live up to the standards we expect of others.’
Langdon said the complexity of immigration law and difficulties faced by detainees in obtaining legal advice and representation added to the problems.
‘The UK has an otherwise well-deserved international reputation for upholding the rule of law. By not addressing problems with immigration detention, we put that reputation at risk. We expect other countries to follow the rule of law and so we must practice what we preach,’ he said.
In light of the report, the Bar Council made recommendations, including a 28-day time limit for administrative detention, judicial oversight of detention arrangements and that legal aid for advice and representation should be available for challenging detention decisions.
Apart from the human cost, Langdon said the annual £125m cost of immigration detention and compensation paid to those wrongly detained was a ‘questionable use of scarce public money’.
The UK’s reputation is at risk without reform to the government’s treatment of immigration detainees, the Bar Council warned.
A report commissioned by the Bar Council revealed the widespread concerns of judges and lawyers over the government’s treatment of immigration detainees.
Injustices in Immigration Detention, by Dr Anna Lindley of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, is based on a series of practitioner interviews. The report condemned the inflexible Home Office rules and target-obsessed officials, which according to one judge meant that ‘too many people are being banged up’.
Home Office bail summaries were universally lambasted and judges berated Home Office officials for giving misleading information to tribunals and for presenting them with ‘elliptical nonsense’ when challenging bail applications.
‘Some are quite good… others are incompetent, and some seem to be on some sort of mission to imprison people,’ said one barrister, echoing the perspective of many others.
Other interviewees criticised officials for adhering rigidly to ‘stupid’ codes, overlooking key details and being reluctant to disclose important information at tribunal hearings. Insufficient training and supervision were also blamed for wasting time and taxpayers’ money.
Bar Chair, Andrew Langdon QC said: ‘The Home Office is one of the great offices of state, but the quality of its decision-making is unacceptably poor. Dr Lindley’s research paints a picture of officials acting with little accountability, unable or unwilling to pursue obvious and viable alternatives to detention.’
He said: ‘If we cannot remove or detain people fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, we fail to live up to the standards we expect of others.’
Langdon said the complexity of immigration law and difficulties faced by detainees in obtaining legal advice and representation added to the problems.
‘The UK has an otherwise well-deserved international reputation for upholding the rule of law. By not addressing problems with immigration detention, we put that reputation at risk. We expect other countries to follow the rule of law and so we must practice what we preach,’ he said.
In light of the report, the Bar Council made recommendations, including a 28-day time limit for administrative detention, judicial oversight of detention arrangements and that legal aid for advice and representation should be available for challenging detention decisions.
Apart from the human cost, Langdon said the annual £125m cost of immigration detention and compensation paid to those wrongly detained was a ‘questionable use of scarce public money’.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
The Bar Council is ready to support a turn to the efficiencies that will make a difference
The white-collar criminal and civil silk Jonathan Fisher KC, Independent Reviewer of Disclosure and Fraud Offences, advocates modernising the disclosure regime and harnessing AI to reduce the court backlog. He tells Anthony Inglese CB about his career path and conclusions of his review
