470 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 6. CO N C LU S I O N 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 Silverman and Molnar (n 64) 109. Bianchini (n 8); Bianchini (n 5) 134–59; Equality and Human Rights Commission, ‘Torture in the UK: Update Report. Submission to the UN Committee against Torture in response to the UK List of Issues’ (May 2019). See section 4.3 above; Bianchini (n 8) 20. ibid 34–36. Singer (n 19) 12–13. McBride (n 73) 125. ‘Ministry of Justice Publishes Long-Awaited Review into Legal Aid, Proposes No Significant Changes for Immigration’ (Electronic Immigration Network, 11 February 2019) <https:// www.ein.org.uk/news/ministry-justice-publishes-long-awaited-review-legal-aid-proposes-nosignificant-changes> accessed 8 March 2020. In other words, legal aid covers bail hearings, but not statelessness applications or deportation cases. Cases regarding a person’s status (like stateless status) concern their ‘substantive case’. Sheona York, ‘The End of Legal Aid in Immigration: A Barrier to Access to Justice for Migrants and a Decline in the Rule of Law’ (2013) 27 Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 106, 108. See section 5.3 above. Singer (n 19) 12. Bianchini (n 8) 23. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 Stateless persons in the UK continue to face difficulties in accessing procedural and substantive justice in the SDP and in the context of immigration detention. On one hand, this is due to legal gaps and, on the other, to objective, subjective, and physical barriers. The small sample size of this study uncovered common challenges and advocates for further exploration of the close connection between these two areas. In particular, the article demonstrated that the obstacles preventing access to justice for stateless persons in the SDP and immigration detention spheres are interrelated, self-reinforcing, and predisposed to snowballing.200 In line with earlier research,201 this study highlighted shortcomings in the SDP framework, especially with respect to detained applicants and the strict prerequisites and procedural formalities that have to be met.202 The article also showed that, while there are problems of access to justice in immigration detention for all detainees, stateless people have to deal with additional challenges. Those challenges are linked to the lack of provisions that address their special circumstances.203 Far worse, the physical, subjective, and objective barriers experienced by detained stateless persons complicate their prospects of accessing the appeals mechanism and counsel even further when they are in a remote location and have poor phone and internet access.204 Problems caused by barriers affect the conduct of immigration interviews and the preparation of cases,205 which, in turn, influence the decision-making process.206 Furthermore, whereas legal aid covers the issue of the unlawfulness of detention, it does not fund the substantive immigration case, although it is the contested immigration status that justifies the power to detain.207 The cumulative effect of these obstacles, along with the inability to navigate the immigration processes, excludes stateless persons from the comprehension and use of rules and decisions208 and impacts on the persistence of their irregular situation. Eventually, these issues expose many stateless people to administrative detention without a defined time limit.209