To Detain or Not To Detain?

In January 2004, the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, heavily criticised the policies of the European Union towards refugees and migrants. In a speech to the Members of the European Parliament, he spoke of ‘offshore barriers’ and of ‘refused entry because of restrictive interpretations’ of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. He said that asylum seekers are ‘detained for excessive periods in unsatisfactory conditions’.1

Two months later, in March 2004, the European Parliament\’s Committee on Citizens\’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, in its “Report on the Situation as Regards Fundamental Rights in the European Union”, said:

(The Committee ) concerned at the plight of foreigners being deprived of their freedom in holding centres despite the fact that they have been charged with no crime or offence and calls for holding centres, in particular holding centres for asylum-seekers, to meet human rights standards.2 

On 13 January 2005, eighty asylum seekers detained in Safi barracks, one of the four  detention centres in Malta, were beaten up by members of the Maltese Armed Forces in response to a peaceful protest that they had organised against the conditions of their detention. In the end, twenty-four of the protesters had to be taken to hospital with serious injuries.

On 28 June 2005, a delegation of twelve European MEPs from the group GUE-NGL (Union for Europe of the Nations and Group-Nordic Green Left), visited a detention centre for immigrants on the island of Lampedusa off the coast of Sicily. The MEPs were particularly shocked by the living conditions of the detainees and the way they were treated. In the report which they issued after the visit, the MEPs said that they had been ‘stunned’ by what they had seen.3

This article will consider the issues and questions surrounding the detention of asylum seekers in Europe and in Ireland. There are serious issues also regarding pre-removal detention of irregular migrants but these are beyond the scope of the article.

‘Pre-admission’ Detention
In general, detention is interpreted in legal terms as an administrative measure and not a measure of a penal system, although it takes on characteristics of criminal incarceration. The United Nations General Assembly speaks of a ‘detained person’ as ‘any person deprived of personal liberty except as a result of conviction for an offence’.4

The administrative detention of asylum-seekers is termed “pre-admission detention” as distinct from the detention of irregular immigrants with the intention of deportation, often described as “pre-removal detention”. Detention has become an increasingly
widely-used instrument in European asylum and immigration policy in order to enforce existing policies and legislation. Not only has the number of detainees risen, but the length of time people spend in detention has also increased.5

Right to Manage Migration Flows v Right to Liberty
A state\’s fundamental right to manage migration flows is largely undisputed. The state has a right to protect its people by preventing those who try to immigrate illegally, as well as those who might pose a threat to the health or security of the nation, from entering the country. In an ethical analysis of the detention of asylum seekers, Professor Markus Babo, University of Lucerne, writing in a JRS Europe report, Detention in Europe, argues:

This right must be enforceable, so that anyone refused entry, who does not leave the country voluntarily, may be forcibly removed. Without such sanction, legal immigration would be impossible to control and maintain and therefore the state would be forced into a passive role.6

Detention of nationals from non-EEA (European Economic Area) countries (frequently referred to as third country nationals) may be used to provide such sanction. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that detention violates a person\’s liberty. The right to liberty is a fundamental human right, which is protected by Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which states: ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person’. As Professor Babo points out:

Should a state find it necessary to limit this right to liberty, it is obliged to give reasons, for the removal of liberty represents a grave moral evil to the affected individual. This can only be ethically justified, if an even greater evil (generally for the relevant state or society) is to be avoided by such means. Deprivation of the right to liberty of movement can therefore be allowed only in absolutely exceptional circumstances.7

Thus detention should only be considered as a measure of last resort. (An extract from the ethical reflection on the detention of asylum seekers by Professor Babo is given in Box 1 below)

Box 1 : Pre-Admission Detention – An Ethical Analysis
Professor Markus Babo, University of Lucerne

Pre-admission detention happens immediately after arrival. It is legitimized by the argument that a great number of refugees cross European borders and that it has to be assumed that only very few of them are in need of protection. Detention of asylum applicants is deemed necessary to establish their identity and need for protection more quickly and easily and to facilitate removal where necessary. This could only be justified on ethical grounds if detention of asylum applicants were the lesser evil for the state and its people in comparison to the application for asylum without removal of liberty, and if a serious national emergency were threatened. This might be true if there were such a high number of asylum applicants that processing their applications without detention would be impossible.

This, however, is not the case. Only a fraction of worldwide refugee migrations reaches Europe. There were 10.5 million refugees throughout the world in 2002, of which only 2.3 million came to Europe and only 615,000 to North America, while 7.5 million went to Africa and Asia10 … Countries in the southern hemisphere… continue to accept considerably more refugees in spite of their lower standard of living. Numbers alone, therefore, cannot serve to justify the indiscriminate detention of all refugees.

The fact that less than half the migrants are officially recognized as being in need of protection under the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,11 is insufficient reason in itself for the routine detention of all asylum applicants. Since the attainment of refugee status remains practically the only entry route into Europe (apart from family reunification and immigration for highly qualified labour) all those willing to migrate are forced down this route, which is getting narrower and narrower.

The EU member states have reinforced their borders and surrounded themselves with a belt of third countries. Alongside this, special asylum procedures have been implemented at airports, which make it almost impossible to enter the EU legally. Refugees are therefore increasingly driven into the arms of professional human smugglers and traffickers and are virtually forced to disguise their identity and route of movement. Otherwise they risk ending up back in their country of origin. You cannot expect people who try to escape from inhumane conditions in their home country to apply for visas and enter a foreign country legally carrying a valid passport. Often they have neither the time nor the money to acquire the necessary travel documents. While these facts highlight the need for structural change in Europe, they must not lead to global suspiciousness of all those who try to acquire refugee status.

Anyone who takes the international commitments towards refugee protection seriously cannot justify the routine detention of asylum-seekers just for the sake of simplifying administrative procedures. In years gone by, there was a much greater number of asylum applicants than now, and authorities coped without pre-admission detention. Where necessary, the administrative burden could be eased by less stringent methods, e.g. by the implementation of registration procedures and restrictions on mobility. It is a fallacy to suggest that the asylum process can be speeded up by detaining asylum-seekers. Better results could be expected from increasing the number of investigating personnel…and improving their training.

Since 11 September 2001 and, again, 11 March 2004, the issue of national security has become a key argument in favour of detention of Islamic migrants travelling without valid documents.12 This certainly has to be taken seriously. Where there is an acute threat, even stricter controls and more serious restrictions of individual rights can be justified. However, one must bear in mind that the terrorists did not enter the relevant countries as refugees. Any routine detention of (particular groups of) asylum-seekers based on the argument of national security also serves to criminalize without differentiation and to strengthen xenophobic tendencies. By reducing migration issues to a national security problem one loses sight of the fact that it isn\’t the refugees that must be fought. What must be fought are the things which cause migration, such as unjust economic and social orders, ecological destruction, inhumane political systems and the erosion of traditional cultural foundations in the refugees\’ home countries. Thus the argument of national security must be employed with great care and only in exceptional circumstances. Security measures should never be implemented solely at the expense of refugee protection, as explicitly confirmed by the EU Commission.{mospagebreak }

Detention in Europe

For persons who have fled their country due to a \’well founded fear\’ of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, and who have already endured imprisonment, and in some cases torture, in their country of origin, the effects of detention can be particularly grave. Often the poor living conditions in detention centres have been adjudged to amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, as defined by the European Convention on Human Rights.8

In the case, ,9 the European Court on Human Rights considered that the conditions of detention of the applicant, a Syrian detained while awaiting expulsion to his country of origin, when taken together with the duration of his detention which was eighteen months, constituted inhumane treatment. In this case, the applicant had been confined in an overcrowded and dirty cell with insufficient sanitary and sleeping facilities, insufficient water, without fresh air and natural daylight and no yard in which to exercise.

Detention in many instances has negative psychological effects. At the end of last year, a Turkish woman and her four children, aged between four and eight, were locked up in a small room for twenty-two days in a UK detention centre in Dungavel, prior to removal to Germany. In Germany, they were all granted humanitarian protection on the grounds that two of the children were recognised to be in great need of psychotherapeutic care resulting from their treatment in Dungavel.

The duration of detention is a common problem across many EU states with migrants often being detained for long periods of time. Both Malta and Germany allow detention for up to eighteen months; Belgium for up to eight months. In the United Kingdom, the period of detention can be indefinite. France is the honourable exception, with a maximum duration of detention of thirty-two days.

Detention is an expensive measure. The estimated cost of detention in the UK is in excess of €10,000 per detainee.

Most countries have detention centres specifically for foreign nationals: however, in the UK, migrants may be detained in prisons, while in Malta they are detained in camps.

JRS Europe argues that detention is a systematic but flawed response to increasing numbers of immigrants arriving in Europe every year.{mospagebreak }

Irish MEPs Visit to Cloverhill

In Ireland, the vast majority of males detained under immigration legislation are in the detention facilities in Cloverhill Prison, Dublin. (The vast majority of females are detained in the Dochas Centre in Mountjoy Prison. Other centres which can be used for detention are specified in the legislation.13)

On Friday, 16 September 2005, four Irish MEPs – Proinsias de Rossa (Labour), Bairbre de Brun (Sinn Féin), Mairead McGuinness (Fine Gael) and Gay Mitchell (Fine Gael) – visited Cloverhill detention facilities to assess the situation of unsuccessful asylum seekers and irregular migrants detained there and awaiting deportation.

This followed an approach by JRS Europe to Irish MEPs asking them to visit places of detention for migrants in Ireland. Since 2004, JRS has been engaged in a Europe-wide advocacy campaign to highlight the conditions of migrants detained in Europe. Part of this campaign has been to urge MEPs to visit places of detention in their own country.

Box 2: Report on the Fact-Finding Visit of Irish MEPs to Cloverhill Prison, 16 September 2005

1. Findings

Approximately 70% of the 110 foreign nationals detained in Cloverhill are there under the provisions of immigration legislation. MEPs found that the facilities were humane and the conditions of detention generally satisfactory, although the question of possible overcrowding had been raised during the visit.

The detainees benefit from the same services as prisoners on remand, including health care, psychological assistance and access to sport activities. MEPs praised the staff in Cloverhill whom they considered to be committed to ensuring that the conditions of detention were as good as possible in the circumstances.

However, they all expressed serious concern that asylum seekers and irregular migrants are being detained in a prison when they have not committed a crime. Bairbre de Brun MEP was of the view that detention in prison facilities ‘can have serious negative consequences for the mental and physical well-being [of the detainees] and can often add to existing trauma and mental health problems’.15

A particular concern was the length of detention, with the average duration being between 30-50 days. Under the Immigration Act 1999 the maximum period for which person awaiting deportation may be detained is 56 days. However, under Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996, the maximum period of detention is unspecified as a judge may commit an asylum seeker to successive periods of ten days in detention while their application is being determined. Gay Mitchell MEP said he was ‘surprised to learn that persons could be held for up to 56 days on the say-so of a Garda without judicial review’.

The delegation highlighted the fact that families were separated in detention. Cloverhill is a male-only prison; women and children are detained in the Dochas Centre at Mountjoy Remand Prison (Dublin). Proinsias De Rossa MEP pointed out that: ‘this is contrary to the provisions of the EU Directive that lays down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers 16 that Ireland has unnecessarily opted out from’.17 There is a family room for visits in Cloverhill, but this is subject to a waiting list.

A major deficiency identified by the MEPs was the lack of educational facilities for those in detention in Cloverhill. The Governor assured the MEPs that the prison has educational facilities in place and has appointed teachers, but agreement from the trade unions involved is still pending. Mr. De Rossa noted that as Cloverhill is the most modern prison in Ireland: ‘it begs the question whether or not educational services are available in any of the other detention centres and what kind of other facilities are available in them?’18 .

Mairead McGuinness MEP wondered: ‘whether prison is the right place to handle this very delicate issue. While I\’m not happy that people who are not criminals are effectively locked up in prison, any solution to this problem must be better that that currently on offer by providing enhanced language services, health and other services.’

Bairbre De Brun MEP said that she plans to raise the issue of the detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants both at national and European level.

2. Recommendations

After the visit, the MEPs recommended that:
· detention should be used as a measure of last resort;
· those detained under immigration and refugee legislation should be separated from sentenced prisoners and those remanded on criminal charges;
· overcrowding must be avoided in all circumstances;
· the period of detention should be kept to the minimum and a reasonable maximum clearly laid down in legislation;
· the right to family life, as provided by the European Convention on Human Rights,19 should be guaranteed to those in detention;
· Ireland should sign up to the EU Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers.{mospagebreak }

Conditions in centres used for detention in Ireland again became the focus of attention in November 2005, with the publication of a research report, “Immigration-related Detention in Ireland”, which had been commissioned by the Irish Refugee Council, the Irish Penal Reform Trust and the Immigrant Council of Ireland. On the basis of interviews with detainees, and of an independent examination of living conditions, the report concluded that: ‘neither Cloverhill Prison nor the Dochas Centre provides an appropriate environment in which to hold immigration detainees\’.14

The visits by MEPs to detention centres in Ireland and other countries underline the need to establish an independent EU monitoring body to ensure that the conditions of detention for asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe are satisfactory and in line with human rights standards. JRS Europe has recommended that the European Commission should set up a body to monitor and periodically report on the development of national legislation on detention and detention practices in the EU Member States, as well as in the EU candidate countries and their non-EU neighbour countries.

Pre-Admission Detention of Asylum Seekers in Ireland

1. The Legal Basis
The amended 1996 Refugee Act outlines six grounds under which an immigration officer or a member of An Garda Síochána may detain an asylum-seeker. These are when, ‘with reasonable cause’, he or she suspects that an asylum-seeker:

· poses a threat to national security or public order in the State;
· has committed a serious non-political crime outside the State;
· has not made reasonable efforts to establish her/his true identity;
· intends to avoid removal from the State in the event of his or her application for asylum being transferred to a convention country or a ‘safe third country’ (under the Dublin Convention asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first ‘safe’ country that they enter);
· intends to leave the State and enter another state without lawful authority; or
· without reasonable cause has destroyed his or her identity or travel documents or is in possession of forged identity documents.20

2. The Numbers
The November 2005 report, “Immigration-Related Detention”, showed a significant fall in the total number of people detained under immigration provisions betweeen 2003 and 2004: from 1,852 to 946. This reduction of 48 per cent in the numbers detained occurred in parallel with a fall in asylum applications in Ireland of some 40 per cent between 2003 and 2004. However, while the total number of detainees has decreased, the duration of their detention has increased significantly, with 619 people detained for longer than 50 days in 2004 compared with 367 in 2003.21

Only aggregrate statistics are provided on immigration-related detention, so there is no breakdown to show what proportion is made up of different groups, for example, pre-admission aslyum seekers; pre-removal detainees; those who have been refused permission to land or other groups of irregular immigrants. Analysis and discussion of the issue of pre-admission detention in Ireland requires that specific data on the extent to which asylum seekers are being detained should be made available.

3. The Safeguarding of Due Process

There is considerable discretion given to immigration officers and Gardai to detain asylum seekers at the point of entry. Immigration lawyers have raised the question: who vindicates the rights of asylum seekers at the point of detention? Imagine the situation of an individual asylum seeker who arrives at a port of entry to Ireland and is detained because they cannot adequately prove their identity or are carrying false travel documents: what safeguards are in place to ensure that their rights are respected?

It is important to remember that if an Irish national is arrested for an alleged crime they have certain statutory and constitutional rights. A Garda will inform them of these rights and allow them call their solicitor who can advise them on how to proceed. The rights of foreign nationals being detained under immigration legislation, should likewise be protected; they are entitled to an explanation of the reasons for their detention in a language they understand and to have access to legal assistance.

4. Duration of Detention
In looking at the question of the maximum duration of detention in Ireland, it is necessary to refer to the procedural rules arising from the Refugee Act of 1996 [as amended by the Immigration Act 1999, the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000, and the Immigration Act 2003].

An asylum-seeker, detained under the decision of an immigration officer or a member of An Garda Síochána, ‘shall, as soon as practicable, be brought before a judge of the District Court assigned to the District Court district in which the (asylum-seeker) is being detained’ (Section 9 (10)). The District judge may decide either ‘to commit the (asylum-seeker) concerned to a place of detention for a period not exceeding twenty-one days from the time of his or her detention’, or to release them. Subsequently, a District Court judge may commit the asylum-seeker for further periods of detention (each period not exceeding twenty-one days) pending the determination of the asylum-seeker\’s application if the judge is satisfied that the grounds for detention still apply. In Ireland, therefore, there is no specified time limit for detention of asylum-seekers awaiting a decision on admissibility and who fall under Section 9 (8) and (13).

5. Persons Refused Permission to Land
Under the Immigration Act 2004 third country nationals arriving in Ireland by air and sea are obliged to present themselves to an immigration officer for ‘permission to land’. There are eleven grounds outlined in the Act under which an immigration officer may refuse permission to land. One of the grounds is that the person ‘is not in possession of a valid passport or other equivalnet document issued by or on behalf of an authority recognised by the Government, which establishes his or her identity’.22

The Garda National Immigration Bureau reported that 4,827 people were refused permission to enter Ireland in 2003; in 2004 the number increased marginally, to 4,844.23

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform Discussion Document, “Immigation and Residence in Ireland”, issued in April 2005, proposed that \’there should be provision for the detention of persons refused permission to enter\’.24 There is considerable concern that this will lead to the significant expansion of the use of detention in Ireland and to the introduction of ‘detention centres’.

Concerns about \’Pre-admission\’ Detention in Ireland

1. Undermining the ‘right to seek asylum’
Under current legislation Gardai and Immigration Officers have considerable discretion within the terms of the six grounds under which they can, \’with reasonable cause\’, detain people entering the country to seek asylum. For example, a person may be detained on the grounds that they cannot adequately prove their identity or that they are travelling with either no or false travel documents. But almost all asylum seekers are in this situation. The fact that they are detained may prejudice their asylum claim or may result in their claim being automatically put into the \’fast-track\’ on the basis that it is ‘manifestly unfounded’. The consequence of pre-admission detention in these cases may be to undermine a person\’s right to seek asylum.

2. Effectiveness of Alternatives
The effectiveness of detention compared with alternatives such as release on bail has been challenged.25 Research in the UK, for instance, has shown that only 2 per cent of people released on bail have absconded. The amended 1996 Refugee Act allows a judge to impose conditions for release of asylum seekers who have been detained, including ‘(I) that the person resides or remains in a particular district or place in the State, (II) that he or she reports to a specified Garda Síochána station or immigration officer at specified intervals, (III) that he or she surrenders any passport or travel document in his or her possession’ (Section 9 (10)(ii)). These alternatives to detention are obviously preferable both from a human rights and a cost perspective. The likelihood of a person absconding is clearly lower in the case of someone who is at the start of the process of trying to make a claim for asylum than it is in the case where a person has made the application, been turned down and, having exhausted all legal channels, is now faced with deportation.

3. Detention Centres
Many NGOs, including JRS, have highlighted the inappropriateness of using prisons as places of immigration-related detention. In response, it is sometimes suggested that the solution would be the introduction of specific detention centres for this purpose. This presumes that pre-admission detention is in the first place an appropriate measure. JRS would argue that asylum-seekers should not be detained until a final status determination has been made regarding their application. The only exception should be when circumstances in individual cases raise concerns about threats to national security or alleged criminal activity. These should be dealt with under criminal law proceedings and any decision to detain should comply with due process guarantees.{mospagebreak }

Policy Recommendations

1. General
In its Report, Detention in Europe, JRS Europe outlined a range of policy positions on detention and EU immigration and asylum policy. Key among these were the following:

In the EU, an ‘area of freedom, justice and security’, there is no place for systematic restrictions of human rights.

JRS-EUROPE shares the Vatican\’s assessment that policies which are only repressive and restrictive towards migrants and refugees, including measures such as administrative detention of asylum-seekers and irregular immigrants, are unable to control migratory flows.

JRS-EUROPE recognizes State concerns regarding security safeguards especially after 11 September 2001 and 11 March 2004. However, any necessary safeguards should not be used as a pretext to detain asylum-seekers and immigrants. JRS-EUROPE is concerned that asylum-seekers and irregular immigrants may be further victimized as a result of public prejudice and restrictive judicial and administrative measures.26 Criminal and administrative law can and should address the problem of threats to national security and public order. It is unnecessary to criminalize innocent refugees and migrants through restrictive administrative practices such as detention.

JRS-EUROPE is also gravely concerned that refugee protection standards may be diminished in the face of policies and positions against terrorism.

JRS-EUROPE challenges the detention of asylum-seekers:
· The more asylum-seekers are detained after lodging a claim either at the border or in a country, the more those who have protection needs may be forced into situations of ‘illegality’ rather than pursuing legitimate asylum claims. In this way detention forces asylum-seekers to use channels of irregular immigration.
· It is not reasonable to think that an asylum claim can be better determined when the applicant is in detention rather than free and able to access legal and social services, which would aid in establishing the bona fides of the asylum claim.
· Detention itself does not help to verify a person\’s identity.
· Detention criminalizes asylum-seekers.
· Detention has an adverse effect on the values of society as it normalizes exclusion and administrative imprisonment of a part of society and provokes racism and xenophobia.
· Detention has enormous financial costs.

2. Ireland
In relation to the developing situation regarding detention in Ireland, the Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice and JRS Ireland recommend that:

(i) The provisions to detain asylum seekers under the amended Refugee Act 1996 should be revised to protect people’s right to seek asylum. Effectively, asylum seekers should not be detained except on those grounds that relate to threats to national security or suspected criminal activity. Detention under these grounds should be enforced under criminal proceedings with due process guarantees. The assessment of the other grounds already constitutes part of the process of determining status.

(ii) Existing non-custodial provisions outlined in the 1996 Act should be used as an alternative to detention, accompanied by appropriate monitoring to evaluate their effectiveness.

(iii) There is an urgent need to ensure there are adequate safeguards to vindicate the rights of asylum seekers at ports of entry. In its report, “Detention in Europe”, JRS Europe highlighted the importance of ensuring that adequate information is provided for detainees about their detention and access to legal assistance. JRS Europe stressed that:

· The detainee should be informed promptly, in a language which she or he understands, of the reasons for her or his arrest.
· The detainee should have the right to be heard during the procedure, if necessary with the help of an interpreter. If the information and hearing can not be provided in the native language or any other language the person understands, she or he should be released as in this case the lawfulness of the detention cannot be guaranteed.
· The detainee should have the right to take proceedings by which a court can decide the lawfulness of her or his detention speedily and her or his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. This court should be different from the issuing body; the possibility of appeal must be given, not only at the beginning of the detention, but at any appropriate time.
· The detainee should be informed of the above-mentioned rights in a language she or he understands.
· Each detainee should be provided with legal assistance.
· The cost of the interpreter should be covered by the State.
· Detention orders should be reviewed regularly in order to ascertain that detention remains appropriate.

Access to legal assistance at the time of detention would require either legal services in airports and ports of entry or a twenty-four hour dedicated telephone line with a panel of solicitors on call. Clearly, this would require a significant investment of resources.

2. European Parliament Committee on Citizens’ Freedom and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs, Report on the Situation as Regards Fundamental Rights in the European Union 2003, 22 March 2004, no. 27.
3. Report of the visit by the GUE-NGL delegation to the Lampedusa detention centre (
4. United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, ‘Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment’, Adopted by General Assembly Resolution, 43/173, 9 December 1988, 76th plenary meeting.
5. J. Hughes and O. Field, ‘Recent Trends in the Detention of Asylum-seekers in Western Europe’ in J. Hughes and F. Liebaut (eds.), Detention of Asylum-Seekers in Europe: Analysis and Perspectives, The Hague, 1998, pp. 5-48.
6. Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Europe, Detention in Europe, Observation and Position Document, Brussels: JRS Europe, 2004. par. 15.4.1. (Updates of the report available on
7 Ibid., par. 15.4.2.
8. Article 3 of the Convention states: ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishement’.
9. Judgment of 6 March 2001.
10. UNHCR, 2003 Global Refugee Trends, Geneva: UNHCR, 2004, p. 89.
11. Ibid., pp. 34-35.
12. M. Welch, Detained: Immigration Laws and the Expanding I.N.S Jail Complex, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2002.
13. The Refugee Act, 1996 as amended by the Immigration Act,1999, the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficding) Act, 2000 and the Immigration Act, 2003, specify the other places of detention as: Mountjoy Prison (Dublin), Arbour Hill Prison (Dublin), Cork Prison, Limerick Prison, and Abbey Arch (Galway).
14. Mark Kelly, Immigration-related Detention in Ireland, Dublin: Irish Refugee Council, Irish Penal Reform Trust and Immigrant Council of Ireland, 2005. p.8.
15. Press Release issued by Sinn Fein, 16 September 2005.
16. Council Directive 2003/9/EC, Article 8 states: ‘Member States shall take appropriate measures to maintain as far as possible family unity as present within their territory, if applicants are provided with housing by the member State concerned …’. Article 14.3 states: ‘Member States shall ensure, if appropriate, that minor children of applicants or applicants who are minors are lodged with their parents or with the adult family member responsible for them whether by law or by custom’.
17. Press Release by Proinsias De Rossa MEP, 16 September 2005.
18. Idem.
19. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights states: ‘Everyone has the right to respect for private and family life..’
20. Section 9 (8)
21 Mark Kelly, op. cit., p. 15.
22 Immigration Act, Section 4(3)
23. Mark Kelly, op. cit., p. 16.
24. Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Immigration and Residence in Ireland: Outline Policy Proposals for an Immigration and Residence Bill, A Discussion Document, Dublin: Stationery Office, 2005.
25. Irene Bruegel and Eva Natamba, Maintaining Contact: What Happens after Detained Asylum Seekers get Bail?, London: South Bank University, 2002 (Social Science Research Papers, no. 16).
26. JRS Europe is referring to measures and decisions taken by judicial and administrative authorities to detain asylum-seekers without consideration of due process, for example, in cases of automatic detention, detention without hearing, or denial of right to appeal detention.