The Detained Fast Track and
the Parliamentary inquiry
March 2015
Summary
The Parliamentary inquiry called on the Government to take ‘urgent steps’ to address the
problems with the Detained Fast Track asylum process (DFT).
Asylum-seekers continue to be detained on the DFT for their asylum claims to be processed,
despite the finding of the High Court in Detention Action in July 2014 that the system was
operating in a manner that was unlawfully unfair. The inquiry echoed the High Court in
expressing concern at the impact of the ‘inherently stressful’ detention environment and the
fact that ‘many individuals who are detained within the DFT are, by the Home Office’s own
guidance, allocated to it incorrectly.’
The inquiry concludes that ‘the DFT has become too focused on utilising detention for
administrative convenience rather than speedy, high quality decision-making’, reiterating its
belief that ‘detention should be a last resort and for the shortest possible time.’
What is the Detained Fast Track?
Vulnerable asylum-seekers are detained for the administrative convenience of the Home
Office on the DFT. Since its introduction in 2000, the DFT has grown vastly in scope and in
size. Many more asylum-seekers are now detained, for longer periods, in worse conditions,
with tighter timescales, than was ever initially intended.
The DFT is a process for deciding asylum claims whilst the asylum-seeker is in detention, to
accelerated time-scales. The Home Office began detaining asylum-seekers for fast-tracking
in 2002, in response to a dramatic increase in numbers of asylum applications. In 2002 there
were 84,132 asylum applications in the UK; by 2012 the number had fallen to 21,875.
Nevertheless, the Home Office has expanded the use of the DFT. 4,286 asylum-seekers were
detained on the Fast Track in 2013, the last period for which statistics have been published,
an increase of 73% on 2012.
The DFT is designed for asylum claims that are considered to be suitable for a quick decision.
However, the decision to fast-track an asylum case is made when very little is known about
the person’s situation. As a result, vulnerable people with complex cases, including victims
of torture, trafficking, gender-based violence and homophobic persecution, are regularly
detained on the DFT.
The criteria for suitability for the DFT have gradually widened: there is no longer a
nationality list of suitable countries, for example. The screening process simply does not
ensure that unsuitable cases are excluded from the DFT, because the questions asked do not
address the details of the person’s case and are unlikely to elicit information that would
demonstrate unsuitability, such as experience of torture, trafficking or mental ill health.
Wrongly entering the DFT can have devastating effects on a vulnerable person’s chances of
asylum. The Home Office refuses 99% of asylum claims which they have placed on the DFT.
The safeguards that should ensure that unsuitable cases are taken out of the DFT are
ineffective. Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules requires detention centre medical staff to
report on any person for whom detention is harmful or who may have been a victim of
torture. However, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and the HM
The Detained Fast Track
•
Detention Action
Inspectorate of Prisons have criticized the poor quality of the reports and of the responses
from Home Office case owners.
A process operating unlawfully
The High Court ruled in July 2014 that the operation of the Fast Track had been so unfair as
to be unlawful. Mr Justice Ouseley accepted that there were flaws in the safeguards
designed to prevent vulnerable people from being wrongly fast tracked, and found that the
lack of adequate early access to legal advice was the crucial failing that tipped the system
into unlawfulness. He found “deficiencies” in the screening process and noted that “the
process inherently cannot identify all the claims which are in fact unsuitable for detention or
a quick decision”. Mr Justice Ouseley expressed “real unease about the cases which go
through the DFT system when they should not have done so.” He also concluded that Rule
35 reports “are not the effective safeguard they are supposed to be” and do not work as
intended to remove unsuitable cases from the DFT.
The Home Office took immediate steps to allow asylum-seekers on the Fast Track to have
four working days with their lawyers before their interviews. This time allows them to
gather and present evidence that they should not be on the Fast Track, enabling some to be
released.
The unlawful detention of appellants
In December 2014, the Court of Appeal found that detention of appellants under the ‘quick
processing criteria’ was unlawful as it failed to satisfy the requirements of clarity and
transparency. Lord Justice Beatson made clear that, had it been necessary to decide the
point, he would have found that detention could also not currently be justified.
The Court of Appeal issued an order requiring that the Home Office assess each appellant on
the Fast Track, and only detain those who are considered at risk of absconding. The Home
Office hastily assessed all asylum-seekers going through the appeals process, and released
eight people. However, since then less than 4% of asylum-seeker appellants have been
released, although asylum-seekers in the community are rarely detained as absconding risks.
It is clear that the detention of asylum-seekers is at the very edge of breaching the UK’s
international obligations to people fleeing persecution. The DFT is in urgent need of
abolition or root and branch reform, in order to protect the UK’s reputation as a place of
protection for refugees.
Detention Action
Detention Action provides emotional and practical support to people in immigration detention,
primarily in Harmondsworth and Colnbrook, near Heathrow Airport, and the Verne in Dorset,
and campaigns for detention reform.
© Detention Action 2015
Contact: Jerome Phelps
Jerome@detentionaction.org.uk
020 7226 3114
www.detentionaction.org.uk
2