Refusal of bail and further bail applications

If the applicant is refused bail they may apply again for release at a later date. How soon to apply again is a matter of judgement, taking into account what else is happening in the persons case and ideally taken with the support of a legal advisor.

Under provisions introduced in the Immigration Act 2014, the immigration tribunal must refuse - without a hearing - any bail application made within 28 days of a previous refusal, unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate in their application that there has been a material change in their circumstances. For example, a surety is now available, or there is new information about the availability of a travel document. In other words, unless there has been a concrete change in circumstances there is unlikely anything to be gained by putting in another bail application a couple of weeks after a refusal.

Anyone who is reliant on the Home Office granting them a bail address, and especially any person with a criminal conviction which will generate delays in granting a bail address, will tend to find that the frequency of bail applications is driven by the availability of Home Office bail accommodation and the HMPPS local workload, rather than their specific circumstances.

People with an offending history who want to get released from detention Visitors will find it helpful to bear in mind that people with previous convictions (even though they have served their sentence) will find it particularly difficult to obtain release from detention. This is because a presumption of risk associated with their offending behaviour is routinely used by the Home Office to justify their ongoing detention, to oppose release on bail, and by the First Tier Tribunal (FTTIAC) to refuse release. This is generally the case regardless of the degree of seriousness of offending history, and regardless of whether or not that risk will be managed in the community by a probation officer. In general, when it comes to seeking release from detention, an offending history, however minimal, and the presumed risk of harm on release associated with that history, tends to override considerations such as the length of detention, barriers to removal (such as the absence of travel documents), ill health including severe mental illness, and the rights of the children of detained parents. The result is that additional steps may need to be taken to achieve release such as obtaining an updated OASys (Offender Assessment System) report to comment on the risk of reoffending and harm.