Bespoke Licence Conditions and Bail

We act on behalf of a person who is facing deportation after a lengthy period in Prison.  We today have won his application for bail demonstrating that there is a reasonable alternative to immigration detention on the following grounds:

1. Removal is not imminent 
2. He is unlikely to abscond and has an incentive to comply with bail conditions 
3. Robust “risk management plan” is in place 

The applicant, who was granted indefinite leave to remain, was convicted of a series of various offences and was sentenced to a long period in Prison.  The Secretary of State decided to revoke his indefinite leave to remain, and as a ground of appeal against deportation he claimed asylum on the basis that deporting him to his country of origin will be in breach of the Refugee Convention.  Whilst the application for asylum was refused, and whilst the appeal is pending, we had made an application for bail, so that he would not remain in immigration detention.  The bail application was successful and we would like to share some of the important lessons to be learnt from such a successful case.

It is worthwhile arguing that deportation is not imminent in cases where the applicant is litigating in the First Tier Tribunal.  A deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances, and the Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use their power to detain for that purpose.

We have submitted that our client cannot be deported while his appeal against refusal of an asylum application is outstanding and therefore his removal is not imminent. 

Bail for immigration detainees (BID) brought to the Secretary of State’s attention that there are concerns on the use of prolonged solitary confinement in immigration detention. They reported on 7th April 2021 that many are detained under immigration powers in prison in either isolation or with one other cell mate for between 22 and 24 hours per day since the beginning of the pandemic.  In these circumstances there is no basis, we argued that the applicant should continue being detained under these conditions.  

However, the main strength of the bail application was the work of our legal team in liaising with the Probation team.  We have managed to arrange for a robust risk management plan to be in place for the applicant’s release which addresses the risk of reoffending and ensures the safety of the public.  Not only did we demonstrate that the applicant has addressed his offending behaviour and risk factors whilst in prison, the plan that was put in place, was for supervision sessions on a weekly basis, access support, talking therapy and Probation confirmed that he will be subject to bespoke licence conditions. This very closely monitored and supervised approach secured his release, and met the concerns of any risk of reoffending.  

Suffice to say that both applicants and practitioners should be familiar with the bail guidance for Judges which provide the underlying principles.  In short, a Judge should grant bail where there is no sufficiently good reason to detain a person and lesser measures can provide adequate alternative means of control.