Recommendation 7: Introduce 28-day maximum time limit on detention
From The Brook House Inquiry Report, published 19 September 2023.
Recommendation
The government must introduce in legislation a maximum 28-day time limit on any individual's detention within an immigration removal centre.
In brief (written by this site)
The Inquiry recommended introducing a statutory 28-day maximum time limit on immigration detention. In a January 2025 written answer, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister of State at the Home Office, stated that the recommendation had been rejected (Dame Angela Eagle response, Jan 2025; Dame Angela Eagle, Jan 2025). In July 2025, Mrs Justice Lang in the Administrative Court ruled that the department was lawfully entitled not to accept or implement the recommendation (Mrs Justice Lang, Jul 2025). HM Inspectorate of Prisons found in September 2025 that while the average stay had fallen to 69 days, 67% of detainees at Brook House had been held for over two months, with the longest stay exceeding 550 days (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Sep 2025).
Sources
AI-generated summary of the record on this page, checked by a second model and automatic checks, 5 Oct 2026. The record below is the sources' own words.
Government response
Following full consideration three recommendations (recommendations 7, 19 and 30) have been rejected.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: The source gives this passage once, for the three recommendations it says were rejected. The same words are recorded on recommendations 7, 19 and 30.
Earlier statement from Home Office (1)
6.3.2. The government does not accept the recommendation that it should set a time limit on detention. A time limit would significantly impair the ability to remove those who have breached immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. The Illegal Migration Act makes it clear that immigration detention must only be used for a period of time that is reasonably necessary, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, for the relevant immigration function to be carried out.
How this response relates to the recommendation
Site note: CP 1041 is organised by ten key issues, not by recommendation, and states no position on any individual recommendation. Its only general statement of acceptance is that "The government has carefully considered and accepts the broad thrust of the recommendations". The words "in principle" do not appear anywhere in the document.
Delivery
Home Office says not accepted (15 January 2025)
Site note: One written answer of 15 January 2025 addresses all 33 recommendations in groups: it names each recommendation in one of four groups and says nothing further about any of them individually. It does not say which of the 30 it describes as "accepted or partially accepted" were accepted in full and which in part.
Site note: The source gives this passage once, for the three recommendations it says were rejected. The same words are recorded on recommendations 7, 19 and 30.
What other bodies have found
In their own words. These do not change the delivery statement above.
Administrative Court (21 July 2025)
I consider that the Defendant was entitled not to accept or implement this recommendation, as a lawful exercise of her executive discretion. The Claimants’ suggestion that this intensifies her duty to rectify other identified issues is their opinion, not an arguable legal submission.
From: R (D1914 and AAA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mrs Justice Lang
Site note: These are the words of the judge, Mrs Justice Lang, at paragraph 161 of her judgment in R (D1914 and AVY) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 1853 (Admin): the court's finding on the Home Office's decision, not a statement by the Home Office. The Home Office's own words rejecting this recommendation are in its written answer of 15 January 2025.
Published evidence
Published findings referenced by inspectorates, select committees, official progress reports, and other sources. Source type badge indicates whether the finding is independent or government self-reported. Each finding is this site's summary of what the source found, with a link to the source; this site does not add its own progress rating.
Summary by this site of the published finding
3.6 The average cumulative length of detention was still high, but had reduced from 78 to 69 days, and fewer detainees were held long term: three had been held for over a year compared with 10 at the full inspection. 3.7 However, the longest stay was over 550 days, and 67% of detainees had been held in Brook House for over two months, compared with 46% at the full inspection, and 27% at the inspection before that.
View detailed findings
3.6 The average cumulative length of detention was still high, but had reduced from 78 to 69 days, and fewer detainees were held long term: three had been held for over a year compared with 10 at the full inspection. 3.7 However, the longest stay was over 550 days, and 67% of detainees had been held in Brook House for over two months, compared with 46% at the full inspection, and 27% at the inspection before that.
Responsible bodies
Themes and tags
Who has spoken
- Home Office
Response, delivery statement - Administrative Court
Finding