"Deportation, regardless of justice: An examination of the experiences and effects of the 'deport first, appeal later' policy on foreign national pris

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Criminological research into borders, the mass movement of people and, perhaps more importantly, the associated (perceived) necessity to control migrant populations has become a burgeoning and essential field of study. In an ever more global society where people are increasingly mobile and able to cross borders, it is unsurprising that there has become a perceived need for control of migrant populations. However it is the control methods that are being employed to manage these globalised citizens that are cause for concern, particularly for criminologists (Sudbury, 2005). In the UK, 2014 saw the introduction of new policy aimed at increasing the efficiency of deportation of foreign national prisoners. Existing provisions of the 'deport first, appeal later' policy were ratified by the Immigration Act 2014 and in its first year of being actioned, some 230 foreign national prisoners have been deported without the prior possibility of appealing the decision (Home Office, 2016). Those that receive a deportation order from the Home Office under the new legislation are unable to appeal the order until after they have been deported, meaning they must file the appeal from the receiving country. The austere rationale for this policy was stated by then Immigration andSecurity Minister James Brokenshire, "the deported then have the right to launch an appeal from their own country, rather than clogging the British justice system - costing UK taxpayers time and money in fighting the cases through the courts." (The Guardian, 2015).Deportation of foreign national prisoners has been a priority of the Home Office since 2006, and in that time there has been a significant amount of change in immigration policy and legislation. These changes have resulted in immigration systems and penal systems working ever more closely with the aim of increasing efficiency of foreign national deportation (Bosworth, 2011: 583). The introduction of the 'hubs and spokes' prison system meant that immigration policy was firmly embedded within the penal system (Kaufman, 2015) and the 2007 UK Border Act introduced mandatory deportation to all non-EEA citizens serving a custodial sentence of more than 12 months (Bosworth, 2011). The 2014 UK Border Act, which includes the 'deport first, appeal later' provision, is the latest in policy developments concerning deportation of foreign national prisoners and is arguably the most punitive of recent times. According to the Home Office, the number of foreign national prisoners removed from England and Wales via deportation is the highest it has been since 2009 and, in the last year, the deportation of foreign national prisoners has increased by 8% (Home Office,2016b). Prior to this policy being introduced, foreign national prisoners appealing against deportation decisions could not be removed from the country until their appeal rights had been exhausted. A number of concerns are raised by the introduction of this new policy, not only in relation to the increasingly draconian nature of immigration policy and legislation, but also to the practical implications of such policy on the lives of the deportees and their families. This is particularly true in light of the fact that, so far, very few of the appeals that have been lodged have been upheld. Of the 230 people deported in the period 2014-2015, only 67 lodged complaints and of those, just 3 cases have been determined - all of them dismissed (Home Office, 2016). The proposed research will - as well as exploring experiences of the policy - contribute to an understanding of this scarcity of successful appeals. Removing the timely right to appeal within the UK is likely to inflict additional pain, trauma and trouble to this group of people and it is this potential extension tothe pains of imprisonment that I seek to explore by undertaking the research presented below.In order to address this, it will be necessary to consider what is meant by punishment within the scope of