Representation among detainees at an all-time low, latest Bail for Immigration Detainees survey reveals
The latest bi-annual legal advice survey by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) was published last week and it reveals that levels of legal representation in immigration detention are the lowest they have ever been since BID started its regular monitoring fifteen years ago.
Image credit: UK GovernmentYou can download the 12-page report here.
BID surveyed 29 people held at Harmondsworth, Colnbrook, Brook House, Tinsley, and Yarl's Wood immigration removal centres (IRCs) for its latest report. The survey found that that fewer than four in ten detainees surveyed had an immigration lawyer working on their case, marking a further decline in access to legal advice from the figure of 42% in the previous March 2025 survey.
Only 11 out of 29 people surveyed reported having legal representation, which BID noted mirrors the results of a recent Jesuit Refugee Service survey that also found representation levels at 38%. BID noted that two detainees did not know whether they had a lawyer at all, while others expressed uncertainty before answering, pointing to persistent communication problems between detainees and legal advisers.
Among those who did have representation, eight of the 11 were supported by legal aid through the Detained Duty Advice Scheme (DDAS). The remaining three had secured private lawyers. Overall, only 28% of the total group had legal aid representation.
Calling the figures "shockingly low", the organisation warned that the downward trajectory in representation demonstrates a serious erosion of access to justice. BID's Head of Legal Services, commented: "No one should be deprived of their liberty and denied access to justice because they cannot afford a lawyer. The fact that representation levels in immigration detention are at their lowest ever level since we started monitoring should be an urgent call to action for the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. Without such action, we are concerned that people's fundamental rights to challenge their deprivation of liberty are being breached."
More than 30% of unrepresented respondents cited financial barriers, with five people saying they simply could not afford a lawyer despite the ostensible availability of free legal advice through the DDAS. Others said they had been told their case had "no merit", while one detainee reported losing their lawyer after a bail application was rejected. Another said they lost representation when transferred from prison to an IRC.
Several participants indicated they had not been given enough information in detention to understand that they needed a lawyer, and some were unsure why they had no representation at all, highlighting ongoing gaps in communication and legal guidance within detention settings.
The report also highlighted that one detainee sought a legal aid lawyer six times and was told on each occasion that their case lacked merit. He ultimately applied for bail himself with support from BID and was successful, raising concerns about the quality of merit assessments.
Of the 18 unrepresented respondents, 16 had never had a lawyer at any point during their detention. The absence of legal support was found to affect not only case outcomes but the basic ability to navigate the system - while almost all represented detainees understood the stage of their case, one-third of unrepresented respondents did not know its current status. Although some people had attempted to work on their own immigration claims, most said they were unable to do so because the process was too complex or because they lacked the documents or literacy needed to manage their cases alone.
The report further noted: "Out of all survey respondents, 61% of people said they used the internet to research their case. Seven people said they encountered blocked sites while they were researching. Some examples included sites for 'talking to solicitors online on websites with free chat options' as well as 'websites with information about immigration bail'. Many people also mentioned that social media sites are blocked, as well as Chat GPT. There is no clear justification for why these sites are blocked."
Among the 11 detainees who did have legal representation, BID said it was "highly concerning" that more than half of lawyers had not submitted a bail application for their clients, marking a decline compared with previous surveys. As BID noted, with 51% of all detainees in the year to June 2025 eventually released on bail, many could be freed far earlier if they had proper legal support.
BID found serious shortcomings in the operation of the DDAS, which is intended to provide everyone in an immigration removal centre with 30 minutes of free legal advice. While almost all participants were aware of the scheme, delays and difficulties accessing it were common. Two detainees said it took weeks to find out about DDAS, and one only learned of it after paying a private lawyer. Among those who booked appointments, waits ranged from a few days to over two months, and more than half of appointments provided only very general advice, with only three participants receiving guidance on bail.
BID also noted that the inconsistent quality of DDAS appointments often resulted in missed opportunities for legal support. Only five of 19 participants were confident that their case had been taken on after an appointment, and some detainees required multiple appointments with different lawyers before being accepted. In some cases, solicitors refused to take on cases due to lack of interpreters, claimed the case was too complex, or demanded large fees.
No applications for Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) were submitted, a situation BID described as "highly concerning", suggesting that some solicitors may be directing clients to pay privately without first exploring available legal aid options.
In concluding, BID stated: "The findings in this report provide clear evidence that people being detained under immigration powers in the UK are facing severe difficulties accessing legal advice and representation. The minimal systems in place to provide advice under legal aid – namely the DDAS – are broken, and sustained, quality legal representation for people in detention has become a rarity."
A number of recommendations are made, which BID says must be implemented as a matter of urgency. These include automatic allocation of a legal aid lawyer within 48 hours of detention, restoring all immigration cases to the scope of legal aid, improving the quality and monitoring of the DDAS, ensuring access to bail hearings, and ending the use of prisons for immigration detention. The organisation stresses that without these measures, people will continue to be detained without proper legal support and deprived of their liberty.