BID research reveals immigration detainees held for months after bail is granted due to accommodation delays

A comprehensive new report by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) details how widespread delays in securing accommodation for people leaving immigration detention are resulting in individuals remaining deprived of their liberty for months after courts have ruled they should be released on bail.

The 58-page report, No Accommodation, No Freedom: The Impact of Accommodation Delays on Release from Immigration Detention, can be downloaded here.

For the report, BID examined 113 client cases in which individuals had been granted bail in principle but remained detained because accommodation had not been secured. Of those, 26 people (23 per cent) remained in detention for more than three months after being granted bail. The longest delay before release was 249 days.

BID stated: "There are widespread and excessive delays in securing post-immigration detention accommodation, resulting in individuals remaining in detention despite having been granted bail. In these circumstances, detention is being used solely for the purpose of accommodation. This is not a lawful justification for the deprivation of an individual's liberty."

Among BID's 113 clients examined for the report, many had significant vulnerabilities. Of those detained for more than three months after receiving bail, 81 per cent had known vulnerabilities, while 42 per cent had been assessed as Adults at Risk in detention. 81 per cent had known barriers to removal from the UK, and 38 per cent had pending asylum claims.

The report stresses that prolonged detention of vulnerable people has serious consequences for mental and physical health, especially as many people lose hope after being granted bail yet remaining detained.

One former BID client is quoted as saying: "For over 3 months after I was granted bail by a judge, I was still being held in prison and stuck in a ridiculous administrative loop that made no sense at all."

For the 26 cases examined in greatest detail, researchers reconstructed timelines using correspondence with the Home Office, His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), official reports and case files. The report concludes that delays occur throughout the accommodation process, from applications for support through to sourcing and approving addresses.

One of the most significant findings concerns the length of time taken by the Home Office to determine whether individuals were eligible for accommodation support. Across the detailed case sample, the decision-making process alone took an average of 95 days. This period did not include the subsequent time required to identify and allocate accommodation.

The longest Home Office decision took 242 days. In eight cases, slow processing alone prolonged detention by more than 100 days, including a case involving a man referred to as Mr C.

BID explained: "In many cases, these delays in decision-making could be attributed to lack of staff capacity. In Mr C's case, the Foreign National Offender Returns Command Accommodation Team (FNORCAT) explained in email correspondence that 'low staff capacity' was the reason for the lack of progression on an individual's application for s.95 support. It took a total of 117 days for his application to be determined - in this case refused - by which time he had already been released to homelessness after the judge varied the bail grant to remove the residence condition. Mr C went on to make a successful unlawful detention claim, reflecting the fact that slow Home Office processing constitutes an unreasonable and unacceptable reason for an individual to remain deprived of their liberty."

According to the report, delays are compounded by a lack of coordination between agencies, problems with approving addresses, and limited access to legal support needed to navigate the complexities of applying for and obtaining Home Office accommodation.

Researchers found that, on average, BID made five follow-up requests to the Home Office in each of the cases examined to seek updates on accommodation applications. In one case, the charity contacted the department on ten separate occasions. The report concludes that "there appears to be no mechanism to monitor their progress" and suggests that delays would probably have been even longer without BID's intervention.

The report identified five cases in which individuals were released to homelessness, all involving people with known vulnerabilities. These included individuals assessed as unfit to be released without support, people with significant mental health needs, an Adult at Risk awaiting assessment as a potential victim of trafficking, and others with serious physical health conditions or suicidal thoughts. In several cases, the report says, homelessness itself further complicated efforts to provide accommodation and maintain contact with the individuals after their release.

BID makes 32 recommendations addressed to the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Probation Service. Among its principal proposals are the introduction of monitoring mechanisms and target timeframes for accommodation decisions, a simplified application process so that individuals need submit only one request for accommodation support, lower evidential thresholds for demonstrating destitution, and expanding legal aid to cover all accommodation-related matters.

Commenting on the report, Ben Goldberg, Head of Public Law at Turpin Miller, said: "It can only be hoped that the Home Office, Judges and the Probation Service work together to take action on these recommendations and end the dehumanising consequences of the Home Office's detention and accommodation systems detailed in this report."