Immigration Detention: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back — Sophie Walker

19 March 2018 by

immigration centreNew legislation significantly curtails accommodation provision for those seeking release from immigration detention. The likely result is more and more people being held in immigration detention.

The fight to end to indefinite detention of immigrants pending their removal from the UK has been gathering momentum.  There have been parliamentary debates and expert reports, all critical of the Home Office policy of what effectively involves ‘warehousing’ immigrants in cramped and often unsafe conditions with no end in sight.

While there is no legal maximum for how long someone can be held in immigration detention, the Home Office can only use their power to detain if they intend to remove the person and can do so ‘within a reasonable period’.  If at the outset it is apparent that the person cannot be removed within a reasonable period they should not be detained at all. If it becomes apparent once detention has commenced that the person cannot be removed within a reasonable period, then the person should also be released. In addition, the Home Office should exercise appropriate diligence in their efforts to remove the person.

Despite these well-established restrictions on the power to detain, men and women are still held in detention centres for extended periods of time. In March 2018, a report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons of Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre found that 23 men had been held for over year, and one man had been held for four years.

Despite many instances of lengthy periods of immigration detention, one of the main methods of achieving release of long-term detainees via immigration bail has now been curtailed. Under Section 4(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, detainees could apply for the Home Office to provide them with accommodation if they were unable to rely on a friends or family for housing. Armed with a letter from the Home Office confirming the accommodation was in place, a detainee had a much stronger chance of being released on bail.

Not anymore.  On 15th January 2018, Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 was introduced. It repealed and replaced Schedules 2 and 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, bringing with it sweeping changes to immigration bail, as well as repealing Section 4(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act.

Section 9(2) of the Schedule 10 provides that “the Secretary of State may provide or arrange for the provision of, facilities for the accommodation of that person at that address” if the following conditions are met:

  • A person is on immigration bail subject to a condition requiring the person to reside at an address specified in the condition”: s.9(1)(a)
  • “The person would not be able to support himself or herself at the address”: s.9(1)(b)
  • There are “exceptional circumstances” to justify it: s.9(3)

Guidance on Immigration Bail published 12 January 2018 by the Home Office limits a finding of “exceptional circumstances” to cases that fall within three narrow categories: people granted bail by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), foreign national offenders considered high risk or very high risk of causing serious harm to the public or at high risk of offending against the individual, and where the failure to provide accommodation will amount to a breach of Article 3.


What this will mean

These changes mean it is considerably more difficult to obtain release for immigration detainees and will result in ever more people being held for long stretches of time.

Here are some reasons why.

First, the new legislation requires the tribunal to grant bail on the condition that the Home Office will provide accommodation. But immigration tribunal judges tend to only grant bail when accommodation is already in place. In bail hearings, if it often argued on behalf of the Applicant that s/he is a low absconding risk as friends and family will encourage and put pressure on them to remain in contact with the Home Office. These arguments lack force if there is no way of knowing where the Applicant will live and how often they can see their friends and family.

Second, the Home Office Guidance states that accommodation will only be provided for a limited period of time (around 3-4 months) unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify it continuing.  An immigration judge may be unwilling to grant bail without a plan in place for where the Applicant will live when s/he is no longer eligible for accommodation support.

Third, the Home Office considers that the threshold for when Article 3 will be engaged is high. The Guidance accepts that accommodation support will be provided where the failure to do would amount to a breach of the prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment.  In the case of R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State [2005] UKHL 66, it was held that in ordinary circumstances, a decision to deny a person accommodation who is then forced to sleeping rough without food or shelter, amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment. However, the Guidance sets the bar for when the Home Office will consider Article 3 much higher than the House of Lords in Limbeula, stating it “only expected to cover people with serious physical or mental health problems who would not otherwise not fall to be supported under other agreements” (p. 51). Those detainees able to meet such a standard will be few and far between.

Fourth, it is now even harder for detainees with a criminal history to obtain bail.  A case will only give rise to “exceptional circumstances” if the person has been assessed by probation as being a high risk or very high risk of causing serious harm to the public, or to be at high risk of reoffending.   The majority of those who have served time in prison will not fall within these categories – they are reserved for the most serious of offenders. It may also present difficulties to representatives who may be placed in a position of having to argue that their client is at very high risk of causing serious harm to the public or at high risk of reoffending when applying for accommodation support or bail, but then having to argue the opposite in the person’s immigration appeal. For those convicted of most drug offences, dishonesty offences such as fraud and low-level offences of a violent or sexual nature, they will be unlikely to be eligible for accommodation.  The same is true for detainees who do not have criminal history.

If the Home Office cannot show that a detainee’s removal is likely within a reasonable period, and yet the detainee is not able to provide a suitable bail address (either because probation have not authorised release to that address, or where the person has no friends, family or community support), then they are unlikely to be released.  But as the power of detention will no longer be being exercised in order to remove that person, but rather because of the lack of available accommodation, their continued detention is highly likely to be rendered unlawful.

Such a suggestion receives support from a recent High Court case, albeit one under the old legislative regime. In R (MS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 2797 (judgment on 10th November 2017), Mr Martin Griffiths QC stated:

I do not think that detention could be justified simply on the basis that release would place the Claimant on the streets. If it is unacceptable to place the Claimant on the streets, he should be provided with bail accommodation. Detention is not a proper substitute for such accommodation once detention cannot otherwise be justified (para 79).



The latest legislative changes limiting the provision of accommodation support for detainees demonstrate that the Home Office has yet to be swayed by those calling for the UK to radically reduce the numbers held in immigration detention. However, given that the latest Home Office guidance addressing the changes to immigration bail raises more questions than it answers, this is an area that will no doubt be subject of judicial attention in the not too distance future.

Sophie Walker is a barrister practising immigration law at One Pump Court Chambers.

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 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 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 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation 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 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 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: