New posters should be careful about characterisations of any other members - especially those who have been posting for a very long time - lest they be so characterised themselves.

bizgeez, I'm not quite sure why you say "I have to agree" as I can't see who you'd be agreeing with. Personal digs are uncool.

Anyway, what ruffles most people here is that some IOs somehow see themselves as being above the law. News flash: they're not. Power-tripping IOs who cause arbitrary trouble for British citizens out of mischief or boredom are an embarrassment and do not deserve the badge they wear.

Resort to attacking the person rather than the argument is rather unworthy. The potted psychology that you attempt to practise (on the basis of a couple of posts) is quite entertaining, if erroneous and completely misplaced.

Apart from the single incident in LGW when I reacted to being shouted at for not standing in front of a desk, I have never had any issues or problems with the IOs I have encountered to whom I have always been courteous and polite. On the basis of some of the disturbing posts here, it appears that I have been lucky not to come across some.

Now, to pass over the personal attacks and back to the argument.

Thanks vla for finding the relevant provisions, which demonstrate the very limited powers of an IO over returning British Citizens.

This is rather far-fetched. By "hit" I assume you mean some intelligence which suggests that I am a terrorist. I'm reasonably confident - like 99% of the rest of the UK population - that that is not going to happen to me.

So, if that is your only example of the awesome power held over me by an IO, I assume then you agree that IOs powers are extremely limited.

Sorry to say, but wrong again. Any passenger, wherever they come from and whatever their nationality, would have a cast iron case for wrongful imprisonment if they were detained without a proper reason. In our example of a capricous IO on a power trip who detains someone because s/he has not been sufficiently polite and the IO decides to make his/her day a misery in consequence, then that is a grotesque abuse of power; it is unlawful and detention of a person for 5 minutes in such circumstances would give rise to a civil claim. What you fail to understand is that although IOs are given the power to detain people for up to 24 hours, that power has to be used lawfully. If it is used unlawfully, it will give grounds for a civil action.

Personally I had only good experience as far.

I land in LHR twice a month and I haven't had any problem.

The only strange fact is the different procedure depending on if I show them my passport or my Identity Card (both EU):
if I show them the passport, they just have a look, they ask me where do I came from, and then I can go;
if I show them the ID, they put the number into their computer, then is the same as above as they see (I think) on the screen my several arrivals in LHR.

I agree on the fact that all of us we dislike to loose time on queuing at gates or Immigration Control, but they just do their job, they see thousands of people everyday, many of them are unpolite, so I think shouldn't be easy even for them.

Is just life

It seems to go back to - as a British citizen, I have a right of re-entry to this country provided the IO is satisfied that the British citizen's passport I present (i) is genuine; and (ii) belongs to me.

If I refuse to answer ANY questions, then presumably they can (or must) detain me until they can establish (ii) but I don't know under what power they would do this ? To take an example, if I simply walked past the IO without showing my passport but merely declared "I'm a British citizen", what law obliges me to stop and actually prove this ?

There is, I think, a big difference that we shouldn't lose sight of between what the IO can and can't in theory do to you and what he can be answerable for, and what you will actually have the time, energy, money and patience to chase up afterwards. In practice, an IO who takes against you would be able to put together some reasons why you'd need to be investigated a bit more before being allowed to proceed on your way. Even if they overstepped the mark, would you really commit yourself to pursuing it by litigation? Very unlikely. So why give the IO any cause to do so to start off with?

As for the ICCPR, the legal geek in me thinks it is worth pointing out that on ratification, the UK entered a reservation that the operation of the UK's immigration legislation basically takes precedence over the ICCPR, which takes effect subject to the terms of the reservation. Probably for the same reason, the UK has not ratified the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is therefore not in force in relation to the UK. Reliance on Article 12(4) ICCPR and the Fourth Protocol against the UK won't get you anywhere.

Immigration Act 1971, Schedule 2, paragraph 2(1):-And paragraph 16(1):-

We are agreed on that from a practical point of view. My only point would be that a clever capricious IO who hides his/her true motives is no less capricious. Agreed too that it would have to be a pretty extraordinary day before one started thinking about proceedings, not least because of evidential concerns.

Thanks, Globaliser - it seems I should continue to answer a few question (silly or otherwise) until they're satisfied I am who I claim to be.

Provided the passport is valid and registered and the person holding the passport can be readily identified as such the person to whom it was issued, this is sufficient to prove identification as a British citizen, for whom entry into the UK should be automatic. The problem of course is if governments of states, as a matter of course, routinely refuse re-entry to their citizens, then to where would that citizen be deported? Surely the question of statelessness would not arise.

Not a course of action I would ever advocate; however, were I to find myself in that circumstance it would be something worth exploring, although the only likely remedy would be to rectify the non-entry of a citzen in the first place.

That's what I get for posting first thing Sunday morning -- didn't check that. The reservation is here:


However, one would expect that as a matter of practice British passport holders would be guaranteed the right to return unhindered from their overseas travels (eg. without having received advance Crown permission), given the widespread applicability and probable custom of Article 12(4) in international human rights law generally, as not doing so would likely run contrary to the object and purpose of the actual treaty itself!

(NB: Few other countries have such sweeping reservations to Article 12(4).)

To revert back to my earlier reply, IO's hate swiping Brits, but have, since late 2004, been OBLIGED by the Government. Yes, the passport belongs to you, and yes, you are British, but the Government (Immigration would rather just wave Brits through...) have imposed a Big Brother 'regime' of conducting a Customs, Police and Immigration offence check at border control. Yes, you are British, but evidence gathered over a year shows you do not go to New York on business atall.....Sir, please accompany my Customs/Special Branch colleagues... Or, yes, you are British, but evidence gathered shows you have sponsored most of Thailand for a UK visa! The list is endless...

Ehh, I'm not sure about the British passport, but at least the Dutch one does not belong to you but to the state (the Netherlands in this case). So does the British passport belong to you, or the UK government?

FWIW, every US passport belongs to the US government.

I think that this is missing the point a bit. If you're arsey to an IO, even if you hold a valid British citizen passport issued to you, the IO could make life quite irritating and frustrating for you over the next few hours while ultimately deciding to allow you in because you have, in the end, demonstrated that you are the person to whom the valid passport was issued. The IO could do this in ways that make it very risky, if not impossible, for you to prove afterwards that he was doing anything other than a good job of being thorough. And that is why being arsey to an IO may be a monumental own goal if your main objective is hassle-free movement through the arrivals section of the airport.

If we have iris scans and fingerprints securely digitally encoded in our passports in the future, it may be much more difficult for an IO to raise any plausible doubts about you that need checking out. At that point, it may become safe to be rude to IOs on entry. Until then, I'm going to continue acknowledging where the power lies in that relationship, and remind myself that my personal priorities do not include training IOs in human relationship skills - that's a matter for their employer, and their employer's failings (if any) in that department are on show for all the travelling world to see.I very much doubt that Article 12(4) has the status of customary international law. So the reservation is effective. It's primarily aimed, I think, at only some British passport holders - namely those who have no right of abode in the metropolitan territory and require leave to enter the UK like foreigners.

It's the property of the British government.

But "belongs to you" could have simply been used by bizgeez to mean "has been issued to you and is properly in your possession and care" - it's one of those slightly ambiguous phrases.

I agree with Globaliser. It's the same as a citizen's relationship with HMRC if subject to a random investigation - you could give them a piece of your mind (after all you have nothing to hide and HMRC are ultimately responsible to us, right ?) but if you do, the taxman will most likely have the last laugh.