Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Excuses for opposing bail #1 (and #2)


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

We suggest that if the sureties were aware of x’s illegal status in the UK, they have been complicit in assisting him in defying UK immigration law, and are therefore unsuitable in ensuring he comply with the conditions of bail. Alternatively, if these sureties were unaware of x’s illegal status in the UK, it suggests these sureties would be unable to exercise sufficient influence over x as they have been unaware of his past immigration history.

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.


7 Responses

  1. Brilliant – in the same series as travelling with false documents (Dodgy and we are going to insist on calling you the false name) or leaving the country in your own name (That means you can’t be of interest to the authorities.)

    1. We’re so used to these logical fallacies, but what struck me about this one was seeing the two side by side in the same decision.

  2. Looks like standard boilerplate to me, applicable to almost any bail case (and the Home Office aren’t likely to scruple about applying it anyway even if the applicant actually has legal status).

    I had a case where the sureties were opposed because they had “failed to persuade the applicant to surrender voluntarily when he was at large”. Unfortunately for the Home Office, this particular applicant *had* surrendered voluntarily when he was at large (he had walked into Home Office offices in order to claim asylum)! We won bail.

  3. Ah, reassuring to see that nothing changes in the corridors of power! A good wheeze, first thought up by John Morton of Morton’s Fork fame, Chancellor to Henry VII – you have so much money, how about some for the King? You don’t have a flash lifestyle, you must have loads stashed away, how about some for the King?

    Is it my imagination or does the playing field become increasingly uneven? Not that it ever really started at anything else!

  4. If you knew – we have an unreasonable answer for that. If you didn’t know, we do not discriminate – we have an unreasonable answer for that also. Any questions?

  5. Both solid and often pursasive arguments in opposing bail, immigration offenders and their ‘immigration lawyers’ might not want to talk about it, but if you flout the laws of the land there will be consequences.