Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom • 463 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 HO (n 144) ch 55, para 55.8. HL Deb 10 May 2016, vol 771, cols 1652–1673. Refusal of bail cannot be appealed, but detainees may make a new application after 28 days. In addition, they can challenge the lawfulness of their detention in the High Court. Macdonald and Toal (n 142) 1708–10. It should be noted that the UK opted out of the Return Directive, which imposes a maximum time limit of 18 months for immigration detention. Return Directive (n 13) para 15. HO (n 144) ch 55, para 55.1.3. Macdonald and Toal (n 142) 1676; R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Hardial Singh [1983] EWHC 1 (QB). R (Lumba) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 12. ibid. See eg R (Sino) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2249 (Admin); Re Mahmod (Wasfi Suleman) [1995] Imm AR 311; R (A) v SSHD [2007] EWCA Civ 804, para 45; Lumba (n 153); R (Bashir) v SSHD [2007] EWHC 3017 (Admin) [2007] All ER(D) 493 (Nov) para 20; May Bulman, ‘Asylum Seekers Unlawfully Held in Removal Centres for Months despite Courts Ruling They Can Be Released, Lawyers Warn’ The Independent (27 May 2018) <https://www.independent. co.uk/news/uk/home-news/asylum-seekers-held-removal-centres-home-office-emergencyhousing-a8354731.html> accessed 8 March 2020. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 Once authorized, detention must be internally reviewed periodically: after 24 hours, 7 days, 14 days, and then every month, as well as each time there is a relevant change that may have an impact on the reasons for detention.147 Unlike in criminal cases, detention is not subject to judicial scrutiny within a few hours of its authorization. Since the adoption of the Immigration Act 2016, there is automatic review by an immigration judge only after four months of detention, but persons with criminal convictions are excluded.148 Detainees can apply for bail to the First Tier Immigration Tribunal if they have been in the UK for at least seven days. The grant of bail is discretionary and, in most cases, some conditions, such as having accommodation and sureties, must be met.149 One controversial issue is the absence of a statutory maximum time limit on administrative detention.150 Some general limitations on and guidance about the length of immigration detention can be found in HO policy and the case law. According to the policy, immigration detention must be used ‘sparingly’ and for ‘the shortest period necessary’.151 In the seminal Hardial Singh case, the UK Supreme Court established the principle that the power to detain is limited to a reasonable duration and by circumstances consistent with its statutory purpose and reasonableness.152 The Supreme Court confirmed this principle in R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department,153 and it further established that migrants may be detained only for the purpose of removal for a reasonable period to achieve that purpose, and if the HO is acting with due diligence and expedition in order to remove them.154 Since these judgments, there have been several High Court decisions ruling that immigration detention had become unlawful due to the HO’s abuse of power.155 However, a frequent question arising in cases of stateless people is what to do if persons ordered to leave the UK are refused readmission by the country of origin, or if the authorities of that country fail to reply to a request for documentation. The HO’s response is detention. The concern that such persons will