464 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 5.2 Unjust outcomes and unfair bail mechanisms All the research participants in the study were concerned that immigration detention was being authorized based on the arbitrary assessment of certain key factors, which affected the fairness of the decision-making process.159 Even though removal of eight of the 11 interviewees was impossible, and they cooperated to return to their countries of origin (that is, they took part in interviews with the embassies and signed the necessary documents to return), immigration officials approved and upheld their detention, arguing the need to make further attempts with the countries of origin to obtain documents. According to some research participants, the monthly ‘progress reports’ did not actually report progress but rather repeated the same things.160 As statelessness was the cause of their ‘non-removability’ and precisely that factor was not being considered, detention became particularly long and unjustified. In addition, the failed attempts to 156 157 158 159 160 Bianchini (n 8) 24–26. De Bruycker and Tsourdi (n 12) 5. See section 5.3 below. This is supported by previous studies. See eg Equal Rights Trust (n 107) 116. Stateless Person 1 (n 117); Stateless Person 7 (n 110). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 abscond or represent a risk to the public if released is often used to justify the prolonged restriction of their liberty, although at some point their release is inevitable. In light of the above, the main gaps in the legal framework that prevent access to justice for stateless people are the absence of provisions requiring the mandatory assessment of statelessness during the decision-making process relating to immigration detention or referral to the SDP for cases involving people who appear to be stateless (for instance, cases of disputed nationality; cases of people who belong to generally recognized stateless groups; people who originate from an area where there is no recognized State entity under international law); insufficient judicial control over immigration detention; and the absence of a time limit on immigration detention. Moreover, barriers to accessing justice arise at the implementation stage. These barriers can be grouped into three types: (1) unjust outcomes and unfair bail mechanisms; (2) insufficient legal aid and physical barriers; and (3) unresponsiveness to needs by failing to detect statelessness and prolonged detention. In particular, the sections below explain how the application of general legal provisions does not meet the legal needs of the stateless, since the prospect of removal is too easily assumed to exist and individual facts are not adequately examined. As a result, persons whose citizenship status is complex may be unfairly detained for disproportionately long periods of time, or repeatedly.156 Judicial control of administrative decisions through bail mechanisms emerges as insufficient due to the conditions normally imposed for release, which stateless persons are unable to meet.157 Limited legal aid funding for stateless detainees and the remoteness of immigration detention centres impact on efforts to retain counsel and the ability to enjoy certain rights.158 Finally, the fragmentation of the legal provisions between the area dealing with detention and the determination of statelessness is a major issue that impacts on the possibility of reaching a substantive solution to the lack of a nationality.