468 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 5.4 Unresponsiveness to needs by failing to detect statelessness resulting in ­prolonged detention The subjective barriers that stateless persons face are fundamentally different from those faced by other non-citizens, owing to the delays in attempts to prove that they are not nationals of any State.186 Nevertheless, statelessness is not normally detected before authorizing immigration detention or during its periodic reviews. There are no safeguards to prevent a stateless person being subjected to immigration detention multiple times; there is evidence that cycles of detention occur when authorities engage in new removal attempts. This is because stateless persons may previously have been released without a residence permit and thus left in a legal limbo.187 Moreover, the system lacks specific provisions to require or facilitate detainees’ access to the SDP. All interviewees who had been detained reported their inability to gather documents and their difficulties in getting in touch with their embassies. In addition, due to lack of resources, the HO had failed to schedule their interviews, contrary to its internal policy,188 or to take them to the Statelessness Unit in Liverpool, which has competence to decide on statelessness cases, or to arrange for specialized immigration officials to visit them. The HO did not inform the applicants of the possibility of applying for stateless status in any of the cases under review; NGOs or their solicitors had told them. One solicitor explained that ‘generally, the HO does not treat statelessness applications as applications for protection. Immigration officers have no duty to do anything when someone claims to be stateless, whereas in asylum cases, procedures are started when someone claims fear of persecution’.189 Consequently, some cases of 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 Bianchini (n 8) 30; Detention Action, ‘The State of Detention: Immigration Detention in the UK in 2014’ (2014) 9; Bwalya Kankulu, ‘The Use of Detention and Alternatives to Detention in the Context of Immigration Policies. National Contribution from the United Kingdom’ (HO 2014) 20. By contrast, foreign nationals in immigration detention centres are subject to the Detention Centre Rules which recognize many rights that are denied to those in prisons. Silverman and Molnar (n 64) 124. Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona and Kate Donald, ‘Access to Justice for Persons Living in Poverty: A Human Rights Approach’ (Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland 2014) 33. Katherine Perks and Jerlath Clifford, ‘The Legal Limbo of Detention’ (2009) 32 Forced Migration Review 42–43. ENS (n 15) 31. This policy is explained in section 4.1 above. Solicitor 3 (n 126). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 receipt of incoming calls, and complicate access for legal visitors.183 Thus, opportunities for taking instructions and evidence, and for bail hearing preparation are further restricted.184 The consequences of leaving stateless persons without representation are very serious – as an economically and socially disadvantaged group, they are structurally excluded and denied the possibility of exercising their rights.185 While legal needs may never be fully met, the level of restrictions currently in place raises serious concerns about due process, the rule of law, and the ability of marginalized persons and communities to access justice.