Please find as an attachment a five page document which reports on those clients of the Bail Circle accepted during the last quarter of 2002, who obtained release on bail or Temporary Admission.

  They illustrate a number of the factors which were touched on during the hearing, and which too frequently result in removal being set inappropriately and unjustly.

  1.  Lack of proactive adequate scrutiny of, and action upon cases of applicants who reported they are victims of trauma and torture, and who are brought close to removal without ever having these facts documented or taken into account. In other words; failures of communication/responsiveness between detention medical services, Immigration, and advocacy sector.

  2.  Unjustifiable and sometimes medically risky detention of clients with children, or EU partners resident in the UK, or family separation where partner has residence, and a very evident lack of "facilitation"/co-operation by the statutory services.

  3.  The interaction between length of detention, nearness to removal date, and lack of legal care/competence.

  We have been unable to process a full year's data, or even to include some statements on the legal situation of those who continue in detention past the quarter period 1 October 2002 to 1 January 2003 for which we have produced some descriptive statistics for the Committee's perusal. We believe however there are sufficient pointers to the need for improved quality of attention to be paid to medical, legal and social factors before deciding an asylum detainee is at end-of-procedure and removable. Asylum seekers are in no position to effect this themselves.

DETENTION DATA: NAMES AND NATIONALITY LINKS HAVE BEEN MASKED

  The following brief set of data was prepared by the Bail Circle at very short notice, in response to observing the lack of absence of quantitative data analysing cases during the Committee's hearings. Whilst in no way capable of supporting extrapolations, given the total number of UK asylum detentions, there is in our view sufficient indication of the need for proper quantitative scrutiny and reporting of detention data in order to maintain compliance with international obligations of the UK. We are concerned this is not presently the case.

  The Bail Circle is a small organisation sponsored by the Churches Commission for Racial Justice. It's function is to provide, where possible, sureties to assist asylum detainees and/or their legal representatives to meet the conditions for obtaining bail. The size of its operation falls far short of meeting the needs of bonafide cases.

  What this sample tries to illustrate is not directly to the brief of the Select Committee to review quality of practice with regards to removal:

  However, we felt that the questioning at the hearing brought into view serious questions of access to fair procedure prior to being at "end-of-procedure". Almost all of the cases on whom we here report, had removal directions, several being perilously close to deportation, yet had their cases "turned round" once proper legal care was given. Theirs were not cases where "unscrupulous solicitors strung out dubious legal procedures": Judged from the subsequent outcomes, they had not been given access to a fair legal procedure/advice whilst in detention. We express the hope that honourable members will take on board the need to improve current practice on such points of operation, before agreeing to further efforts to raise removal statistics by intensification and speeding up of removals.

Key to abbreviations in tables:

  VoT = Victim of Torture (reputably attested before or whilst detained)

  SV = victim of sexual violence

  * = release with assistance of Bail Circle surety

  PTSD = Post Traumatic Stress syndrome; eg trauma or torture, highly likely but as yet unattested

  "aka" = person recorded by Immigration/detention centre under name on false passport presented on entering.

Nature of the sample

  During the period of 1 October 2002 to 1 January 2003 the Bail Circle took on a total of 39 clients, = 100%.

  A number of cases which were not accepted for various reasons indicating inability to assist, have not been recorded and are therefore not included.

  Given the very short period within in which to submit data to the Select Committee, a detailed description with tabled data is given of only those cases which were bailed, or released on Temporary Admission, and not of those currently still in detention or removed.

  Releases: 16 = 41% of sample were released (to which one spouse and four children should be added as dependents).

  Cases closed: 6 = 15% of sample, eg Removed or Agreed to Voluntary Departure.

  Still detained: 17 = 43.5% of total sample over the quarter.

  N/total = 21 individuals, including the children. N/applications: 16 + 2 (in which partner had, or made, independent application in own right)

  Of this group, 13 were assigned sureties; in most cases these were Bail Circle members, in others they were relatives or friends with the required immigration status acceptable to the IAA, sought out and/or briefed as to their legal obligations as sureties.

  Gender: N/women: 6. N.single men: 10.

  Minors: N/children: 4. (ages at detention: two weeks, 18 months, five and seven). This included a baby several weeks premature and two weeks old upon detention. Parents both still in asylum procedure. Of this family, the partner was detained separately from mother and child.

  Trauma/Torture: Victims of Torture (known/attested whilst in detention): 4. Likely victim of torture, described as PTSD, as yet unattested: 1.

  Dubious grounds of arrest: One client was detained for few days, having claimed asylum at end of student visa, because of recent well reported political upheaval, and with attested politically high profile parent. Release upon competent representation. Now has ILR.

RELEASE AS FUNCTION OF CHANGE IN QUALITY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION

  Number of cases in which change of, or referral to, representation to a reputable solicitor resulted in release: 11.

  Additionally, there was transfer to able solicitor of partner of mother with premature baby. (This baby was granted leave for JR, remitted, and granted ILR January. 2003 after proper preparation of case.)

  In a number of cases transfer was effected at the very last minute whilst awaiting deportation, when last minute scrutiny by a competent solicitors showed serious flaws in previous legal actions. A number of such cases have been followed by complaints against lawyers, and a few are likely to be the subject of complaints against the Home Office. The relative frequency of such failures in quality of legal representation discovered late, are one reason why we have concerns about restricting access to Judicial Review and about weaknesses in accountability/follow up scrutiny of a significant section of the legal profession.

  One client had detention in a high security prison maintained for several months after completion a criminal sentence for immigration offence (persisting in claim of false identity but own nationality). This happens repeatedly. Yet the country of origin is one to which currently there are no return for reason of political instability. Again, release followed a change of solicitor after advice on quality of representation was sought by relatives/fellow countrymen. In addition there was family separation, one young child. Outcome: ILR.

  Art. 8 ECHR/Art 39: N/cases granted Leave to Remain on basis of Art 8/ECHR + Art 39/EU right of settlement next of kin through marriage, partnership or children with EU citizen resident in UK: 3.

  ILR: N/cases known to have been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain since change of solicitor/ release on TA or bail: 4.

  Legal remedy outstanding, or renewed: N/cases on TA/bail and since granted. Leave for Judicial Review or have the case remitted for hearing de novo: 4.