456 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 4.2 Unjust outcomes and unfair exclusion from stateless status To date, despite the guarantees of existing procedures, many stateless people in the UK have not satisfactorily received substantive justice.103 While more empirical data are required in order to be able to generalize from the research findings, this study points to three broad problematic areas within the SDP: (1) poor implementation of the definition of ‘stateless person’; (2) biased immigration officials; and (3) unfair exclusion from stateless status on security and public order grounds. First, the definition of ‘stateless person’ is not properly implemented.104 According to UNHCR and HO guidance, the phrase ‘operation of law’ encompasses ‘not just legislation, but also ministerial decrees, regulations, orders, [and] judicial case law’.105 It also includes administrative practice.106 Cases where both State law and practice must be analysed tend to be highly complex, with the result that protection is often refused.107 According to the findings in this study, this is partially due to a lack of readily available and sometimes inaccurate country of origin information on nationality laws and the 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 ILPA and University of Liverpool Law Clinic, ‘Statelessness and Applications for Leave to Remain: a Best Practice Guide’ (2016) 72–74. HO, ‘Asylum Policy Instruction. V3.0’ (n 78) 25. ibid 27. Cynthia Orchard, ‘UK Home Office Changes to Immigration Rules on Statelessness: A Mixed Bag’ (ENS, 18 March 2019) <https://www.statelessness.eu/blog/uk-home-office-changesimmigration-rules-statelessness-mixed-bag> accessed 20 March 2020. As explained in part 3 above, ‘substantive justice’ refers to the notion that the system must lead to fair results of disputes. Johanna Bezzano and Judith Carter, ‘Statelessness in Practice: Implementation of the UK Statelessness Application Procedure’ (Liverpool Law Clinic, University of Liverpool 2018) 7, 17–22. UNHCR (n 4) para 18. HO, ‘Asylum Policy Instruction. V3.0’ (n 78) 19. Equal Rights Trust, Unravelling Anomaly: Detention, Discrimination and the Protection Needs of Stateless Persons (2010) 220. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 Tribunal can only declare whether or not the decision that it is reviewing is lawful; it cannot substitute the decision with its own and, if necessary, must send the case back to the HO for reconsideration.99 Individuals whose applications are successful are granted leave to remain for five years100 and, at the end of that time, can apply for indefinite leave to remain.101 In terms of leave to remain, the duration for the stateless now parallels that for persons with refugee status despite some remaining ‘differences to entitlements of persons granted stateless leave’.102 As understanding access to justice requires focusing not only on black letter law but also on its implementation, the next section analyses whether these outcomes meet the needs of stateless persons. Section 4.2 examines whether stateless persons are able to exercise their rights through a fair, accessible, and effective process that ensures: the impartiality of adjudicators, a fair burden and standard of proof, a timely remedy, and legal representation.