This research considers State control and legal responsibility for the violation of migrant’s fundamental rights at the hands of privatised or externalised procedures of European Union (EU) Member State migration control and border management. The assertion is made that a migrant’s access to justice can be frustrated based on who (privatisation) it is that is implementing the procedure or because of where (externalisation) it is being implemented. Access to justice is frustrated by the failure of a court to overcome certain key preliminary issues which must be established before the merits of the case – the alleged rights violation – can be considered. These preliminary issues therefore represent triggers for greater consideration of State legal responsibility. Privatisation’s trigger is a court’s potential application of a narrow reading of the State such that a private actor is deemed to be liable for rights violations arising out of the implementation of a procedure. This decision can be made even when the State holds a significant amount of control and authority over the implementation of the procedure in question. Externalisation’s trigger is that a court may pursue a restrictive reading of extraterritorial jurisdiction such that the State is not interpreted as having engaged its jurisdiction and as a result that court will not consider the alleged violations and thus legal responsibility will not be established. The State’s exercise of ‘compulsory powers’, the use of physical force in the implementation of a migration control and border management procedure, has been relied upon as the indicator as to whether legal responsibility should be triggered for the State. This research argues that the exercise of compulsory powers is an arbitrary tool by which to decide legal responsibility and results in the neglect of other, more subtle indicators that State legal responsibility should be established. In the absence of a silver bullet resolution to the challenges posed by the triggers of legal responsibility for both externalisation and privatisation, doctrinal solutions are proposed. These solutions enable the courts to provide easier access to justice for migrants and better reflect State legal responsibility for the State’s exercise of control.