Families separated for immigration purposes

13 June 2016 by

I MISS MY MUMLast year 32,446 people subject to immigration control in the UK were detained by the government. Some had entered the country irregularly and were quickly removed. Others were detained pending removal or deportation. More than half of them were released back into the community, meaning that their detention had served no purpose.

But what many people don’t know is that many of those detained were ordinary people, many of whom had lived in the UK for decades and, until they were detained had been quietly going about their everyday lives with their partners and children.   Some have never known any other home, and have husbands and wives, sons and daughters, jobs, homes, lives right here in Britain. Decisions to detain pay no heed to the impact of such a decision on the wider family. Parents are removed without warning from the heart of the family.

Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) recently helped a man called John. John fled his home in a war-torn African country and used a false passport to get into the UK (the only way he could escape), where he claimed asylum. He has now lived in the UK for 10 years – he met and fell in love with a British woman, with whom he has two British children.

John’s asylum application was refused, and the government detained him. They can’t deport him – he doesn’t have a passport, and the country he is from will not give him one. But still he was locked away – with no charge, and no sentence. Taken from his family home. His two young children left struggling to make sense of life without their father.

John had no money to get legal representation, and couldn’t get legal aid. He got in touch with BID’s Separated Families team, who were able to help him apply for bail, and eventually reunite him with his young family.

John’s story is fairly typical of the people that BID encounters. Many of the people detained by the government moved to the UK when they were children and have no connections in the country of their birth. Many of them have families in the UK – British partners and British children.

Immigration detention is the only form of detention in the UK without limits. The government doesn’t have to get a judge’s permission to detain someone. There is no time limit on detention. People can be detained for six months, a year, two years or even longer. Detention is used as an administrative tool by the government – a convenience without proper consideration of less harmful alternatives, and certainly without consideration of the impact that detention will have on a person’s mental health or their family.

Last year, BID’s Separated Families project reunited 110 families who had been torn apart by immigration detention. Those families represent just a handful of the hundreds – maybe thousands – of parents who have been detained away from their children. Many – probably most – of those parents will eventually be allowed to return to their communities, left alone, again, with their families to try and put behind them the horrors of detention. But now, unlike before, the threat of future hangs over them all like a cloud. As Bid was told by one client, “Detention has scarred me for ever. I will never fully recover from it.”

The Separated Families project, like all BID’s work, relies solely on donations. BID receives no government funding and doesn’t charge its clients, who, without BID, may never have any legal advice to help them challenge their detention. To help assist more people like John, BID has launched a crowd funding appeal on CrowdJustice. Dozens of parents each year depend on BID to help them get back to their families, and BID relies on donations to fund that work.

John Hopgood, Policy and Research Manager for Bail for Immigration Detainees

For more details on BID’s Separated Families Project or to donate to the appeal visit https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/bid/



1 comment;

  1. I am shocked and horrified to read this article & delighted that someone does freely for those without a voice.
    There are other areas of Society that others equally suffer. Though I too help freely at this stage I feel a bit stuck.
    There are some elderly, born in the UK, unable to read nor write, on medication. When they refuse to continue the medication which they say further aggravates their illness, they are forced and controlled by outsiders who have introduced themselves as ‘next of kin’ though not family.
    These elderly patients are treated as animals.
    Can you take on this case so that there is justice.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control hague convention Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: