By Rudy Schulkind

The introduction of automatic deportation for so called ‘foreign criminals’ convicted and sentenced to 12 months or more under the UK Borders Act 2007 (unless certain exceptions apply including the right to a private and family life), followed by further provisions in 20121 and 20142 , has led to an increasingly strident regime that makes it mandatory to separate a child from a parent. That is, so long as any harm that is caused to the child, parent or partner is not ‘excessive’. In the case of children, these provisions are relied upon by the Home Office and the courts to override the government’s statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. Through our legal casework BID has witnessed first-hand the devastating impact this regime is having on families and communities. We have undertaken this research so that we can shine a light on this cruel and inhuman policy. Our research is primarily based on interviews with fathers facing deportation from the UK. It is the words of those directly affected that form the substance of the report. The testimonies of the fathers we spoke to are powerful and often heart-breaking, and paint a picture of an entirely broken system that cannot be in the public interest. Section 1 of the report examines the sprawling impact of the deportation system, from the individuals punished permanently and given no second chance because they don’t have a British passport, to the children and families treated as collateral damage. Families were placed in extreme practical, financial and emotional hardship by extended periods of uncertainty under the constant threat that family life will be brought to a permanent end. Not only were the fathers we interviewed prevented from working, they faced repeated periods of detention that were traumatic for the entire family and placed an even greater practical burden on the mother. A particular focus of this section is the devastating impact deportation has on children. In the interviews we carried out, fathers facing deportation reported their children developing anxiety; crying constantly; unable to let their dad out of their sight; withdrawing from everything; loss of appetite; difficulty sleeping; having nightmares; and in one particularly serious case self-harm and attempted suicide. In addition to these testimonies we present evidence of recent academic insights about enforced parental separation in a number of different contexts. Somewhat unsurprisingly the evidence  overwhelmingly finds that being forcibly and permanently separated from a parent generally has severe consequences for a child’s wellbeing and long-term development. Section 2 of the report concerns access to justice. The removal of legal aid and successive legislative changes have had a particularly detrimental effect on people seeking to appeal deportation. Interviewees explained the myriad interlocking barriers to justice they had been forced to confront. These include the complexity of immigration law and the prohibitive cost of private representation, as well as practical obstacles for those deprived of their liberty. The frequent and excessive use of detention, itself an injustice, leads to additional practical barriers to challenging deportation, particularly where this takes place in a prison. The first-hand evidence from our interviews reflect a dysfunctional system designed to make it practically impossible to even access a fair hearing. Alongside this we also present evidence from our own Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) project. We have found the ECF scheme to be unnecessarily burdensome and entirely inaccessible to unrepresented individuals. 

London: Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2021. 40p.

By David Neal

In July 2021, I announced my intention to conduct ‘An inspection of the Satellite Tracking Service Programme’ (STSP). I agreed with the Home Office to delay my inspection given the electronic monitoring service had yet to commence, and to avoid overlap with STSP project assurance reports. The purpose of tagging is to reduce absconding and increase the number of foreign national offenders (FNOs) removed, the latter being a key Home Secretary priority. It also enables, in certain circumstances, the Home Office to see where an FNO has been. The service is still in the first 6 months of rollout and it cannot yet demonstrate it is achieving these aims. My inspection team found staff in the Home Office’s Electronic Monitoring (EM) Hub (the Hub) to be hard-working, dedicated and ready to ‘muck in’ to get things done. They reported feeling well supported by managers, and inspectors noted a positive workplace culture. However, their efforts have been hampered by protracted government recruitment processes, a lack of training and an underestimation of the volume of legal challenges. Staff shortages meant that the Hub has had to prioritise certain areas of work to the detriment of others, leading to delays, for example, in the 3-monthly reviews of those who are on a tag and a lack of use of formal sanctions for breaches, including prosecutions. The latter point leads to multiple warning letters being sent out to individuals who have breached the conditions of their tag, which threatens to undermine the effectiveness of the whole programme. This requires urgent senior management intervention. I am pleased that there appears to be some recent progress on recruitment and that new staff were due to start shortly after the onsite phase of the inspection concluded. However, the Hub needs to have a clear plan for what can be achieved with its current level of resources and as the Home Office expands its use of EM, including the delayed introduction of non-fitted devices, a key part of its strategy. This expansion should be supported by a comprehensive training package for both existing and new staff alongside the implementation of quality assurance processes and more effective performance management of the supplier, to help drive continuous improvement.  

London: Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, 2022.  43p.

By Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) , Medical Justice and the Public Law Project

This report explores the use of GPS Electronic Monitoring (EM), which is more colloquially referred to as ‘GPS tagging’, as one of the conditions of an individual being released from immigration detention on bail. Anyone residing in the UK and who is subject to either deportation proceedings or a Deportation Order may be tagged as part of their immigration bail conditions [1]. Two recent changes introduced by the Home Office have greatly increased both the number of people monitored and the intrusiveness of the monitoring technology. First, in November 2020 the Home Office transitioned from radio frequency electronic monitoring (EM) to a far more intrusive system of Global Positioning System (GPS) electronic monitoring for people on immigration bail [2], thereby monitoring the wearer’s location at all times. Second, since 31 August 2021 the home secretary has a duty to electronically monitor those on immigration bail who reside in England and Wales and who could be detained because they are subject to deportation proceedings or a Deportation Order (‘the duty’)[3]. From 31 August 2022, the duty has also applied to those residing in Scotland or Northern Ireland, although it is not expected to become available in Northern Ireland until November 2022[4]. As a result of these two changes, electronic monitoring is now a mandatory condition for many people on immigration bail in the UK, and the overwhelming majority of those subject to it will be fitted with a GPS tag [5]. This research is based on a review of medical-legal assessments written by clinicians concerning the impact of electronic monitoring, conducted by Medical Justice, and interviews with 19 of Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID)’s former clients who have been fitted with a GPS tag as part of their immigration bail conditions. Through these two streams of research, this report seeks to provide a snapshot of the everyday experiences of wearing a GPS tag whilst on immigration bail.   

London: Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and Medical Justice, 2022. 49p.