No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Revisiting the punitiveness of deportation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 January 2024
Abstract
Immigration measures such as deportation are currently not regarded as punitive and there has been little exploration of this from a legal perspective. This paper will consider this issue in depth, covering little discussed case law from the European Court of Human Rights. It will also explore how this legal position on deportation does not reflect the findings of other disciplines such as criminology and sociology on how immigration measures are used and experienced as punitive. This paper will build on existing literature by demonstrating the significance of a recent development in UK law to this debate. Section 47 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NBA 2022) introduced a ‘stop the clock’ provision into the Early Removal Scheme for foreign national prisoners. This new provision may prompt the judiciary to revisit the question of whether deportation is punitive in some contexts.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars
References
1 See for example Parkin, J The Criminalisation of Migration in Europe (Centre for European Policy Studies, 2013)Google Scholar; Weber, L ‘The detention of asylum seekers: 20 reasons why criminologists should care’ (2002) 14(1) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 See for example Carvalho, H et al ‘Punitiveness beyond criminal justice: punishable and punitive subjects in an era of prevention, anti-migration and austerity’ (2020) 60 British Journal of Criminology 265Google Scholar; Costello, C ‘Immigration detention: the grounds beneath our feet’ (2015) 68(1) Current Legal Problems 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bosworth, M and Aas, K (eds) The Borders of Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Aliverti, A Crimes of Mobility: Criminal Law and the Regulation of Immigration (London: Taylor and Francis, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Aliverti, A ‘Making people criminal: the role of criminal law in immigration enforcement’ (2012) 16 Theoretical Criminology 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leerkes, A and Broeders, D ‘A case of mixed motives? Formal and informal functions of administrative detention’ (2010) 50 British Journal of Criminology 830CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weber, L ‘The detention of asylum seekers as a crime of obedience’ (2005) 13 Critical Criminology 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; L Weber and L Gelsthorpe ‘Deciding to detain: how decisions to detain asylum seekers are made at ports of entry’ (2000) Criminal Justice, Borders and Citizen SSRN Paper Series https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2520382.
3 For some work that does begin to touch on the issue from a legal perspective see Spalding, A The Treatment of Immigrants in the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2022)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eekelaar, J and Collinson, J ‘A fateful legacy of childhood: the deportation of non-citizen offenders from the UK’ (2021) 35(3) Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 230Google Scholar; Collinson, J ‘Deporting EU national offenders from the UK after Brexit: moving from a system that recognises individuals, to one that sees only offenders’(2021) 12 New Journal of European Criminal Law 575CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hendry, J ‘The hostile environment and crimmigration: blurring the lines between civil and criminal law’ (2020) 26 Soundings 76Google Scholar; O'Nions, H ‘No place called home: the banishment of foreign criminals in the public interest’ (2020) 9(4) Laws 26Google Scholar; Spena, A ‘The double deviant identity of the mass foreigner and the lack of authority of the crimmigrationist state’ (2019) 22(3) New Criminal Law Review 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; York, S, ‘Deportation of foreign offenders – a critical look at the consequences of Maaouia and whether recourse to common-law principles might offer a solution’ (2017) 31 Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law 8Google Scholar.
4 Bleichmar, J ‘Deportation as punishment: a historical analysis of the British practice of banishments and its impact on modern constitutional law’ (1999) 14 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 115Google Scholar, Pauw, R ‘A new look at deportation as punishment: why at least some of the constitution's criminal procedure protections must apply’ (2000) 52 Administrative Law Review 305Google Scholar; Kanstroom, D ‘Deportation, social control, and punishment: some thoughts about why hard laws make bad cases’ (2000) 113 Harvard Law Review 1889CrossRefGoogle Scholar; D Kanstroom ‘Deportation and punishment: a constitutional dialogue’ (2000) 41 Boston College Law Review 771; Kanstroom, D Deportation Nation (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Legomsky, SH ‘The new path of immigration law: asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms’ (2007) 64 Washington and Lee Law Review 469Google Scholar; Stumpf, J ‘Fitting punishment’ (2009) 66 Washington and Lee Law Review 1683Google Scholar; Markowitz, P ‘Deportation is different’ (2010) 13 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 1300Google Scholar; Herndandez, C ‘Immigration detention as punishment’ (2014) 61(5) UCLA Law Review 13Google Scholar; Chacon, J ‘Immigration detention: no turning back?’ (2014) 113 South Atlantic Quarterly 621CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ealy, I ‘Criminal justice in an era of mass deportation: reforms in California’ (2017) 20 (1) New Criminal Law Review 12Google Scholar.
5 Gurguchiani v Spain, App No 16012/06 (ECtHR, 15 December 2009).
6 G Clayton Immigration and Asylum Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9th edn, 2021) p 560. On the point of ‘suspected’ criminal activity and future risk see Farquharson (removal-proof of conduct) [2013] UKUT 00146.
7 Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, s 10.
8 See for example in relation France: Peyronnet, C ‘France undesirable and unreturnable migrants under French law: between legal uncertainty and legal limbo’ (2017) 36(1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 35Google Scholar; Hungary: UNHCR ‘Hungary: The deportation process including rights and legal recourse open to a permanent resident; whether marriage to a Hungarian citizen and/or having children who are Hungarian citizens would affect a deportation order’ (HUN33377.E, 22 December 1999), available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6ad5b3c.html; Germany: D Well ‘Things to know about deportations in Germany’ InfoMigrants (June 2017), available at https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/3528/things-to-know-about-deportations-in-germany; Belgium: Federal Migrant Centre ‘Repatriation, detention and deportation’ (2021), available at https://www.myria.be/en/fundamental-rights/repatriation-detention-and-deportation.
9 Immigration Act 1971, s 5(1).
10 House of Commons ‘Statement of changes in immigration rules’ HC 321, 6 February 2008 para 47, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/261554/hc321.pdf.
11 M Savino ‘The right to stay as a fundamental freedom: the demise of automatic expulsion in Europe’ (2006) 7 Transnational Legal Theory 70; L Fekete and F Webber ‘Foreign nationals, enemy penology and the criminal justice system’ (2010) 51 Race and Class 1.
12 Immigration and Asylum Act 1988, s 5; UK Borders Act 2007.
13 R (on the application of Kiarie) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, R (on the application of Byndloss) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 42.
14 G Clayton Immigration and Asylum Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 6th edn, 2006) p 554.
15 M Bosworth ‘Immigration detention, punishment and the transformation of justice’ (2019) 28(1) Social and Legal Studies 81; L Fekete ‘The deportation machine: Europe, asylum and human rights’ (2005) 47(1) Race and Class 64.
16 Savino, above n 11; Fekete and Webber, above n 11.
17 UK Borders Act 2007, s 32.
18 Aliens (Consolidation) Act 2013, s 26(2).
19 German Residence Act 2004, s 53.
20 Law 30 July 2002, no 189 (Bossi-Fini law), amending the 1998 Immigration Act.
21 ‘Swiss vote for deportation of foreigners who commit serious crimes’ (The Guardian, 28 November 2010) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/swiss-vote-deportation-foreigners-crime; J Miller ‘Swiss to vote on law aimed at expelling convicted foreigners without appeal’ (Reuters 17 February 2016), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-foreigners-idUSKCN0VQ0PG/.
22 Fekete and Webber, above n 11, at 9.
23 J Stumpf ‘The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime and sovereign power’ (2006) 56 American University Law Review 367.
24 Engel v Netherlands (1979–80) 1 EHRR 647.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid, para 87. See also Campbell and Fell v United Kingdom (1985) 7 EHRR 165 para 72; Benham v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 293 para 56; Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom (2004) 39 EHRR 1 para 120; Jussila v Finland [GC] (2007) 45 EHRR 39 para 38.
27 Ozturk v Germany (1984) 6 EHRR 409 para 54; Lutz v Germany (1988) 10 EHRR 182 para 55.
28 Bendenoun v France (1994) 18 EHRR 54 para 47.
29 Agee v United Kingdom App No 7729/76 (Commission Decision, 17 December 1976); Zamir v United Kingdom (1983) 5 EHRR CD274. For an in depth look at this case law see Spalding, above n 3.
30 Maaouia v France (2001) 33 EHRR 42.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid, para 39.
33 Ibid.
34 I Bryan and P Langford ‘Impediments to the expulsion of non-nationals: substance and coherence in procedural protection under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2010) 79 Nordic Journal of International Law 457 at 468.
35 Maaouia v France, above n 30, para 29.
36 Ozturk v Germany, above n 27, para 53; Bendenoun v France, above n 28, para 47; Ezeh and Connors v United Kingdom, above n 26, para 102.
37 Engel v Netherlands, above n 24.
38 Maaouia v France, above n 30, para 38.
39 Uner v the Netherlands (2007) 45 EHRR 14.
40 Admissibility Decision Uner v the Netherlands App No 46410/99, 26 November 2002 Court (Second Section).
41 Uner v the Netherlands, above n 39, para 53.
42 Ibid, para 56.
43 Ibid.
44 Uner v the Netherlands, above n 39, Dissenting Judgment of Judges Costa, Zupancic and Turmen, paras 16–18.
45 R v Carmona [2006] EWCA Crim 508. See AT (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 567.
46 Ibid, para 6.
47 Chapter 33 ‘Working with the Police’ in Home Office Instructions and Guidance Operational Enforcement Activity para 33.5.
48 UK Borders Act 2007, ss 32–39.
49 DS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 544 para 37.
50 SC (Jamaica) v Secretary of State of the Home Department [2022] UKSC 15.
51 Ibid, para 88.
52 Eekelaar and Collinson, above n 3; Collinson, above n 3; York, above n 3.
53 Padilla v Kentucky 130 S Ct 1473 (2010) 8.
54 Ibid, at 8.
55 See L Zedner ‘Penal subversions: when is a punishment not punishment, who decides and on what grounds?’ (2015) 20 Theoretical Criminology 1.
56 S Demetriou Indirect Criminalisation: The True Limits of Criminal Punishment (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2023); Hendry, above n 3.
57 For example, IRCs Dungavel and Morton Hall were previously prisons whereas IRCs Harmondsworth, Brook House and Colnbrook were all designed to look and feel like prisons. See HMIP Report on an unannounced inspection of Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre 19–21 July and 2–5 August 2021 (2021), available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/11/Dungavel-web-2021.pdf; HMIP Report on an unannounced inspection of Morton Hall Immigration Removal Centre 28 October–15 November 2019 (2019A), available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/03/Morton-Hall-IRC-web-2019.pdf; HMIP Report on an unannounced inspection of Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre -Handsworth Site 2–20 October 2017 (2017), available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Harmondsworth-Web-2017.pdf; HMIP Report on an unannounced inspection of Brook House Immigration Removal Centre 20 May–7 June 2019 (2019B), available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/09/Brook-House-web-2019.pdf; HMIP Report on an unannounced inspection of Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre 28 February–18 March 2022 (2022), available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2022/06/Colnbrook-web-2022.pdf.
58 HMIP (2019A), above n 57.
59 Ibid. See HMIP Report on an unannounced inspection of Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre 3–5, 9–11 and 16–19 April 2018 (2018), available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/08/Tinsley-House-Web-2018.pdf. See HMIP (2017), above n 57.
60 See HMIP (2021), above n 57.
61 HMIP (2019A), above n 57.
62 HMIP (2019B), above n 57; HMIP Report on an unannounced inspection of Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre 5–7, 12–16 June 2017 (2017), available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/11/Yarls-Wood-Web-2017.pdf. Yarl's Wood is no longer a female-only IRC.
63 M Bosworth ‘Border criminologies: assessing the changing architecture of crime and punishment’ Global Detention Project Working Paper 10 (2016) 5; M Bosworth Inside Immigration Detention (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2014); I Hasselburg ‘Coerced to leave: punishment and the surveillance of foreign national prisoners in the UK’ (2014) 12 Surveillance and Security 471.
64 Hasselburg, above n 63; I Hasselburg Enduring Uncertainty: Deportation, Punishment and Everyday Life (Oxford: Berghahn, 2016).
65 Ibid, p 478.
66 S Turnbull ‘Stuck in the middle: waiting and uncertainty in immigration detention’ (2016) 25 Time and Society 61; J Warr ‘The deprivation of certitude, legitimacy and hope: foreign national prisoners and the pains of imprisonment (2016) 16(3) Criminology and Criminal Justice 301.
67 See HMIP (2022), above n 57. See HMIP (2021), above n 57; HMIP (2019A), above n 57; HMIP (2019B), above n 57. See HMIP (2017), above n 57.
68 Bosworth (2014), above n 63, p 196; L Fekete A Suitable Enemy (London: Pluto Press, 2009); Fekete, above n 15; L Fekete Europe's Shame: A Report on 105 Deaths Linked to Racism or Government Migration or Asylum Policies (Institute of Race Relations, 2009).
69 L Schuster and N Majidi ‘Deportation stigma and re-migration’ (2015) 41 Journal of Ethnic and Migrant Studies 635; Fekete and Webber, above n 11.
70 Uner v the Netherlands, above n 39, Dissenting Judgment, para O-II17.
71 See L De Noronha Deporting Black Britons: Portraits of Deportation to Jamaica (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2020); Schuster and Majidi, above n 69; L Schuster and N Majidi ‘What happens post-deportation? The experience of deported Afghans’ (2013) 1 Migration Studies 221; D Brotherton and L Barrios Banished to the Homeland (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011); N Majidi An Evaluation of the UK Return and Reintegration Programme (Department for International Development, 2009) 27; S Khosravi ‘Sweden: detention and deportation of asylum seekers’ (2009) 50 Race and Class 38 at 52; D Brotherton and L Barrios ‘Displacement and stigma: the social and psychological crisis of the deportee’ (2009) 5 Crime Media Culture 29.
72 Eekelaar and Collinson, above n 3.
73 For a discussion of the importance of ‘hard treatment’ see for example T Brooks Punishment (London: Routledge, 2012) p 5; J Tasioulas ‘Punishment and repentance’ (2006) 81 Philosophy 279 at 283; RA Duff Punishment, Communication and Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) pp xiv–xv.
74 DS (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, above n 49, para 37.
75 Bosworth (2014), above n 63; LWeber ‘The detention of asylum seekers as a crime of obedience’ (2005) 13 Critical Criminology 89; Weber and Gelsthorpe, above n 2.
76 M Gibney ‘Banishment and the pre-history of legitimate expulsion power’ (2020) 24(3) Citizenship Studies 277; D Moffette and S Benslimane ‘The double punishment of criminal inadmissibility for immigrants’ (2019) 28(1) Journal of Prisoners on Prison 44;G Cornelisse Immigration Detention and Human Rights: Rethinking Territorial Sovereignty (Leiden: Martinus Jihoff Publishers, 2010); D Kanstroom Deportation Nation (Harvard University Press, 2007); W Walters ‘Deportation, expulsion and the international police of aliens’ (2002) 6 Citizenship Studies 265; J Bleichmar ‘Deportation as punishment: a historical analysis of the British practice of banishments and its impact on modern constitutional law’ (1999) 14 Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 115.
77 Eekelaar and Collinson, above n 3; Moffette and Benslimane, above n 76; S Turnbull and I Hasselberg ‘From prison to detention: the carceral trajectories of foreign-national prisoners in the United Kingdom’ (2017) 19(2) Punishment & Society 135; F Pakes and K Holt ‘Crimmigration and the prison: comparing trends in prison policy and practices in England and Wales and Norway’ (2017) 14(1) European Journal of Criminology 63; M Bosworth ‘Deportation, detention and foreign-national prisoners in England and Wales’ (2011) 15 Citizenship Studies 583.
78 See for example D Moffette ‘The jurisdictional games of immigration policing: Barcelona's fight against unauthorized street vending’ (2020) 24(2) Theoretical Criminology 258.
79 SH Legomsky ‘The new path of immigration law: asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms’ (2007) 64 Washington and Lee Law Review 469.
80 H Carvalho et al ‘Punitiveness beyond criminal justice: punishable and punitive subjects in an era of prevention, anti-migration and austerity’ (2020) 60 British Journal of Criminology 265; A Ashworth and L Zedner Preventive Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
81 G Letsas ‘Strasbourg's interpretive ethic: lessons for the international lawyer’ (2010) 21 European Journal of International Law 509 at 520.
82 Though citizenship may increasingly be deprived to enable deportability: see C Yeo ‘The rise of modern banishment: deprivation and nullification of British citizenship’ in D Prabhat Citizenship in Times of Turmoil? Theory, Practice and Policy (Edward Elgar, 2019).
83 UK Border Agency and Ministry of Justice Service Level Agreement to Support the Effective and Speedy Removal of Foreign National Prisoners (1 May 2009) p 20.
84 E Kaufman Punish and Expel: Border Control, Nationalism and the New Purpose of Prison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
85 T Uglevik and D Damsa ‘The pains of crimmigration imprisonment: perspectives from a Norweigan all-foreign prison’ (2017) 58 British Journal of Criminology 1025; F Pakes and K Holt ‘Crimmigration and the prison: comparing trends in prison policy and practice in England &Wales and Norway’ (2017) 14(1) European Journal of Criminology 63.
86 The NBA 2022, s 47 increased the availability of FNPs for early removal to 12 months before release date whereas it had previously been 9 months. There is some political discussion about whether to increase this further to deal with overcrowding in UK prisons: H Pidd ‘MOJ to free up cells by deporting more foreign prisoners and axing short terms’ (The Guardian, 16 October 2023), available at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/16/moj-to-free-up-cells-by-deporting-more-foreign-prisoners-and-axing-short-terms.
87 National Offender Management Service ‘The Early Removal Scheme and release of foreign national prisoners’ PSI 04/2013 (15 June 2022) para 3.25, available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1083184/psi-04-2013-early-removal-scheme-release-foreign-national-prisoners.pdf.
88 When it was first introduced there were more exceptions based on offence/sentence type but these were largely removed on 3 November 2008 following the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
89 This applies when there is at least one conviction for a terrorism offence in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Sch 19ZA, Part 1 or 2 or there is a sentence of more than two years and the courts have found the offence to have a terrorism connection under s 69 of the Sentencing Act 2020.
90 Note that this does not include those serving a Detention and Training Order, as this is considered a ‘term’ of imprisonment rather than a ‘sentence’ and is thus excluded from the ERS: National Offender Management Service, above n 87, para 2.24.
91 Ibid, pp 7–9.
92 Ibid, pp 15–17.
93 G Sturge ‘UK prison population statistics’ Briefing Paper CBP-04334 (House of Commons), available at https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04334/SN04334.pdf.
94 Home Office ‘National statistics: how many people are detained or returned’ (24 August 2023), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2023/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned.
95 I Majeed Sheikh ‘Aliens behind bars: the punishment and human rights of foreign national prisoners in England & Wales’ (Border Criminologies, 2022), available at https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2022/05/aliens-behind.
96 Home Office ‘Official Statistics: Foreign National Offenders in detention and leaving detention’ (28 February 2013), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/foreign-national-offenders-in-detention-and-leaving-detention/foreign-national-offenders-in-detention-and-leaving-detention. The definition is still in use in most up to date guidance Home Office ‘User guide to Immigration System Statistics’ (24 August 2023), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/user-guide-to-home-office-immigration-statistics--9/user-guide-to-immigration-statistics.
97 Home Office, above n 94.
98 Part 4 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 implementing Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member State.
99 Immigration Act 2014.
100 For an in-depth discussion of this change see Collinson, above n 3.
101 69% of returned FNOs in 2019 were EU nationals, for example: Home Office, above n 94.
102 Collinson, above n 3.
103 ‘Prisoners’ Release: Foreign Nationals, Question for Ministry of Justice by Lord Swire’ UIN HL6427, tabled on 13 March 2023, available at https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-13/HL6427/#.
104 Ibid.
105 Majeed Sheikh, above n 95; Pidd, above n 86.
106 Criminal Justice Act 2003, s 260.
107 NBA 2022, s 47; Explanatory Notes to the Bill for this Act.
108 R v Parole Board, ex p West [2005] UKHL 1. This case has received mixed judicial treatment since but not on this ground that the decision is administrative and does not attract the right to a fair trial which has been accepted in subsequent decisions: see R (Whiston) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] QB 306.
109 R v Parole Board, ex p West, ibid, paras 38–40 and 56–58.
110 R v Parole Board, ex p West [2003] 1 WLR 705.
111 N Padfield ‘Back door sentencing: is recall to prison a penal process’ (2005) Cambridge Law Review 276; B Weaver et al ‘The failure of recall to prison: early release, front door and back door sentencing and the revolving prison door in Scotland’ (2012) 4(1) European Journal of Probation 85.
112 Vinter and Others v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR 1.
113 Ibid, para 112.
114 Hutchinson v United Kingdom [2016] ECHR 021.
115 N De Genova ‘Doin’ hard time on planet earth: migrant detainability, disciplinary power and the disposability of life’ in C Jacobsen et al (eds) Waiting and the Temporalities of Irregular Migration (Oxford: Routledge, 2020); Hasselberg, above n 64; Turnbull, above n 66; Warr, above n 66; M Griffiths ‘Out of time: the temporal uncertainties of refused asylum seekers and immigration detainees’ (2014) 40(12) Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 1991; M Griffiths ‘Living with uncertainty: indefinite immigration detention’ (2013) 1(3) Journal of Legal Anthropology 263; M Griffiths et al Migration, Time and Temporalities: Review and Prospect COMPAS Research Resources Paper (2013), available at https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/RR-2013-Migration_Time_Temporalities.pdf.
116 Griffiths (2014), above n 115, at 2002.
117 Gurguchiani v Spain, above n 5, paras 40 and 47–48. This judgment is not available in English; for an English summary see Press Release ‘Gurguchiani v Spain, App No 16012/06: Harsher Sentence Imposed Retroactively on Convicted Illegal Immigrant’ 15.12.09 (https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-2970011-3270809).
118 Gurguchiani v Spain, above n 5, dissenting judgment of Judge Zupancic.
119 Ibid, dissenting judgment of Judges Myjer and Fura, paras 1–2.
120 MB Dembour When Humans Become Migrants: A Study of the European Court of Human Rights with an Inter-American Counterpoint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) and C Costello The Human Rights of Migrants and Refugees in European Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
121 Dembour, above n 120, pp 1, 3–5.
122 Costello, above n 120, pp 9–12.
123 App No 16483/12 Khlaifia v Italy [GC] Judgment of 15 December 2016; App Nos 8675/15 and 8695/15 NT and ND v Spain [GC] Judgment of 13 February 2020; Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary (2020) 71 EHRR 6.
124 Dembour, above n 120, p 396.
125 European Court of Human Rights ‘Guide on Article 6: Right to a fair trial (criminal limb)’ (Council of Europe, 2022) p 15, available at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_criminal_eng.pdf.
126 Uner v the Netherlands, above n 39, Dissenting Judgment, para O-II17.
127 Dembour, above n 120.
128 N v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 39.
129 App No 41738/10 Paposhvili v Belgium Judgment [GC] 13 December 2016.