130
Despite the Government’s characterisation of this clause as clarificatory, the Impact Assessment makes clear that...
Conclusion
Despite the Government’s characterisation of this clause as clarificatory, the Impact Assessment makes clear that this involves retrospectively making it lawful to have detained persons (liable to deportation on the ground it was considered conducive to the public good) at a time when they did not have notice of an appealable immigration decision, because they had not yet made a human rights or protection claim.166 To detain a person under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971, pending the making of the deportation order, a person must have been given notice.167 As explained by ILPA, “a “Stage 1” deportation decision was not an appealable decision; therefore, individuals could not have received the requisite notice under the relevant Immigration (Notices) Regulations 2003, which only governs appealable decisions.”168 Alison Harvey, barrister at One Pump Court, told us: “[t]here is no question that it is changing the law. It is not a clarification in any way. It is not in any way compatible with Article 5 ( … ) There was no law and people were deprived of their liberty. The Government now want to rewrite that piece of history.”169
Source
Committee
Human Rights (Joint Committee)
Report
4th Report - Legislative Scrutiny: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
20 Jun 2025
HC 789
Addressee Bodies
Ministry of Justice
Timeline
Recommendation age
1.0 yr
Report published
20 Jun 2025