mundane in the following two sections, yet by seeming unrelated or insignificant these measures have huge implications on producing detention. The sanctioned ignorance of the authorities works to conceal the experiences—the counter-narrative in Spivak’s terms—of detention in the CCAC. From March 2022 to November 2022, people were issued a ‘restriction of freedom’ order to the CCAC for up to 25 days the day after quarantine ended. Nevertheless, people were not permitted to leave the CCAC until they had been issued an asylum card, regardless of whether the 25-day period had passed. The time limit constraint of article 40 was effectively ignored by the RIS in favour of when they considered an individual ‘identified’. As noted above, identification is not formally defined by law. Therefore, until November 2022, the RIS claimed that a person was only identified once they had been issued an asylum seeker card. This is despite the fact that, (i) people were provided with an ID document (the ‘Police Note’) at the same time that the order for ‘restriction of freedom’ was provided; (ii) people had undergone two or three interviews with the authorities prior; and (iii) the fact that the (GAS), conducted substantive asylum interviews before a person had received the card and therefore able to leave the CCAC for legal counselling (21). Internal correspondence from the European Commission revealed that these delays were the result of the lack of interpreters and a permanent doctor who could sign off on medical checks (10). Neither the presence of interpreters nor medical checks (an essential part of vulnerability assessments) provide a legal basis for detention. Moreover, this approach did not provide the two-stage order and often did not follow the time-period constraint, as provided by article 40. That administrative delays in issuing asylum cards partially constituted and dismissed detention showcases how ignorance is weaponised towards the effect of cumulative measures that do not have the ‘intention’ to detain people. This is particularly true where the reasons for these delays are the result of their own inability to employ sufficient medical staff and interpreters—pivotal to upholding the fundamental rights of people in the CCAC. Moreover, the emphasis on the asylum cards ignored the several ways in which people were alternatively and already identified—such as by their fingerprints and the police notes issued after their first interview at the CCAC. Referring to Spivak’s ‘sophisticated vocabulary’, the stated use of restrictions and identification worked to conceal how delays issuing asylum cards and the 25day measure unlawfully detained people in the CCAC. © Sam Jubb 8