Back to list

Date submitted

24 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I am writing to object to the proposed expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000005. INTRODUCTION I am the Chair of #NoDetentionNoHaslar, a community group committed to opposing the re-opening of the Haslar Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) in Gosport. Its members consist of local residents many of whom have considerable experience of immigration detention, having been volunteer visitors for many years to the men who were held in Haslar IRC before its closure in 2015 and professionals from third sector organisations providing legal advice and material support to immigration detainees across the estate. We have worked closely with asylum seekers, refugees and irregular migrants for 23 years, much of this in immigration detention centres. Consequently, we are only too aware of the realities of immigration detention. We remain opposed to the re-opening of Haslar IRC, and we oppose its expansion for the same reasons, upon which I expand below for your serious consideration. ARBITRARY INDEFINITE DETENTION Our opposition to the administrative detention of migrants is founded upon our respect for fundamental human rights. Arguably, the most serious penalty which the UK can impose upon an individual is the removal of their liberty. There are many checks and balances in our democracy, including habeas corpus, to ensure that no-one is unjustly detained, and, if detained, then only for the absolute minimum period necessary. Unfortunately, these checks and balances have for many years not been applied to migrants. The Immigration Act 1971 granted the Home Office sweeping powers to detain for administrative convenience anyone subject to immigration control, regardless of whether they had committed an immigration or other offence. These powers have been used, and are still habitually used, to detain asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights. A significant number of those refused asylum were unable to secure adequate legal representation to conduct those appeals due to the scarcity of immigration advisers who take on legal aid work. This scarcity is a direct and deliberate consequence of the policy of successive governments to deny refugees the international protection which is their right under the Refugee Convention 1951. Whilst Home Office published policy has always been to use detention as a last resort, it is in fact widely used as a first resort. Detainees’ access to legal representation across the detention estate varies from poor to non-existent, effectively preventing any realistic prospect of their challenging the dismissal of their appeals. Because of the arbitrary and first resort nature of administrative detention decisions, the period of detention can stretch to months and even years while the paperwork necessary to effect removal to the detainee’s country of origin, or to a third country, is completed. Any detainee able to make an application for a bail hearing at the Immigration Tribunal is typically met with the Home Office response that removal is “imminent”. At subsequent bail hearings, the Home Office often make the same response. ILLEGAL MIGRATION ACT 2023 The current expansion programme for immigration detention, of which Haslar is part, is largely predicated upon the need for an increased capacity of holding places prior to the removal of those deemed to have committed offences under the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 places a duty on the Home Secretary to remove “as soon as is reasonably practicable” anyone who enters the UK “illegally”. Those who have arrived in small boats since the enactment of this legislation are deemed to have entered “illegally” regardless of their reason for entering the UK. The Act removes from any such person the right to claim asylum, removes the right to claim protection under modern slavery legislation, and removes any prospect of their future settlement in the UK. This amounts to a de facto removal of the right to claim asylum in the UK, since the only practical safe and legal routes of entry for refugees not from Ukraine or Hong Kong is the UNHCR's UK Resettlement Scheme, through which only 485 refugees were resettled in the year ending March 2026. Refugees cannot apply to the UNHCR for resettlement. Make no mistake, the vast majority of those arriving in the UK by small boat are refugees, fleeing mainly Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Somalia. Almost all claimed asylum upon arrival, and, since 2018, 60% of those whose asylum applications have been determined were granted protection at initial decision by the Home Office, with many of those whose applications were refused going on to have that initial refusal of protection overturned on appeal. We assert in the strongest possible terms that the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is not compliant with international law. The Refugee Convention 1951, which the UK helped to draft and to which it was a founding signatory, outlaws (in Article 31) the criminalisation of refugees based upon their mode of arrival, which is precisely what the Illegal Migration Act 2023 does. Although Article 31 of the Refugee Convention applies to those “coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”, the UNHCR has published a comprehensive denunciation of the Act (UNHCR Recommendations on the Implementation of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 6 October 2023) which includes at paragraph 20: "UNHCR urges the Secretary of State to set out in Immigration Rules or published guidance that “passed through or stopped” should continue to be defined in accordance with the international consensus, which UK courts have played a key role in shaping. This consensus is that the term “directly” should be interpreted broadly and not necessarily in a literal (geographical or temporal) sense. Mere transit in an intermediate country cannot be considered to interrupt “coming directly”. Each case must be assessed on its own facts and circumstances, taking into account the realities of flight and the context in which such travel takes place – often through circuitous routes, over land or by sea, frequently with interruptions. There can be good reasons for delay, stopovers and stays in intermediate countries. Such reasons may include, for example, advice or coercion from agents or smugglers, acquiring the means to travel onwards, or particular constraints limiting the ability to move on. Under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, there is no judicial oversight of the period of detention of migrants deemed to have entered the UK “illegally”." INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT We support the research by Freya Morgan of Oxford University Border Criminologies into immigration detention in the UK, which concludes that conditions in immigration detention equate to “inhuman or degrading treatment, if not torture”. Given that the detention of asylum seekers based upon their mode of arrival is in contravention both of habeas corpus and our obligations under international law, the inhuman and degrading treatment which is well documented by many HMI inspections and research reports is particularly egregious. During our work with immigration detainees over the past 25 years, we have witnessed the effects of this inhuman and degrading treatment. Isolation from family and support networks, inadequate healthcare provision, inaccessibility of legal advice and representation, racial attacks by custodial staff, and the indeterminate period of detention, all conspire to damage the mental health of detainees, despite the best efforts of visitor groups. The high level of suicide and suicide attempts in immigration detention is evidence of this. SUMMARY In summary, the Home Office’s proposed expansion of Haslar represents a substantial component of the illegitimate and unlawful expansion of an inhuman and degrading immigration detention estate in the UK. The Home Office's use of the Crown Development route is a shameful attempt to circumvent substantial and legitimate local planning objections. Furthermore, their application makes no credible case for either the need for this expansion or for its value for money. We ask that the Home Office application is refused, and if it is not refused at this stage, we ask that it be examined through a full public inquiry. I would make myself available to attend either a hearing or a public enquiry to give evidence on behalf of NoDetentionNoHaslar. Yours faithfully, Mike Brown CHAIR NoDetentionNoHaslar