Written evidence from the Law Society (IMD0056)

1. In 2017, about 27,000 individuals entered immigration detention. At any one time there are about 2000 people detained under immigration powers and as many as 800 of those are held in prisons, on a harsher regime.

2. The UK is the only country in Europe not to operate a time limit for immigration detention having opted out of the EU Returns Directive which sets a time limit of 18 months maximum. In France the time limit is 45 days. The Detention Action campaign ’Time4aTimelimit’ has gained some traction in Parliament. Liberty has launched a campaign ‘End Indefinite Detention’ #ItsAboutTime.

3. In January 2016, the government published a highly critical Review into the Welfare in detention of vulnerable Persons, following an investigation by Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman This followed a series of judicial reviews in which the SSHD was found to have breached article 3 of the ECHR in its treatment of vulnerable immigration detainees. This led to UKVI introducing a new policy in relation to the circumstance in which vulnerable adults could be detained, the Adults at Risk policy.

4. The SSHD’s policy has in essence been that a torture survivor should not be detained except in exceptional circumstances. The Adults at Risk policy limited the definition of torture survivors to the UNCAT definition so that those who had been tortured outside the CAT definition could be detained. This was successfully challenged in Medical Justice and Ors v SSHD, EHRC intervening [2017].

5. In JN v the UK, 19 May 2016, the European Court of Human Rights, found that part of the applicant’s detention of almost 5 years was unlawful, but they stopped short of finding that the lack of any time limit per se was unlawful (mainly due to the availability of judicial review).

6. In September 2017, the BBC Panorama documentary aired shocking footage of detainees at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre being physically assaulted and verbally abused, including racially abused by G4S staff. This led to a judicial review by two law firms of the Home Secretary’s failure to announce an article 3 compliant inquiry into the treatment of detainees at Brook House. It is understood that the proceedings may lead to the SSHD announcing a PPO inquiry into the events at Brook House.

7. In July 2018, the UKVI published the Stephen Shaw follow-up report on assessing government progress in implementing the report on the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, with this statement announcing an internal review into the lack of time limits, https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-24/debates/03FA26A3-90A1-4E58-826A-1341ABA6D146/ImmigrationDetentionShawReview

8. Unlawful detention judicial reviews continue to occupy a significant part of the Administrative Court’s caseload and are invariably defended by SSHD and subsequently settled. They include claims by those detained for lengthy periods or in breach of policies such as the Adults at Risk policy. An example is claims brought by the Official Solicitor on behalf of mentally incapacitated people where this has been found to be unlawful, as in VC. A further case on this issue is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in May 2019 (ASK and MDA v SSHD).

9. Since 2014 there has been a significant increase in the numbers of EU nationals detained and removed from around 3100 in 2014 to around 5100 in 2017. 67% of removals of foreign national offenders are of EU nationals. In December 2017, the SSHD was found to be operating an unlawful policy of detaining and removing EEA rough sleepers on the basis that they were ‘abusing’ EU rights. NGOs such as the AIRE Centre and BID, and lawyers representing EU detainees have expressed concerns that the SSHD is acting unlawfully and in breach of EU law, with resulting ECHR breaches.

10. The Parliamentary JC on Human Rights is currently conducting an inquiry into immigration detention including into the questions of a time limit, whether current practices protect human rights, whether the detention to detain should be subject to judicial oversight and access to legal advice.

Possible decisions/actions by the Committee

1. The Committee notes that the detention under immigration powers and the treatment of immigration detainees in prisons and detention centres in England and Wales, as well as the impact of successive legal aid cuts on their access to justice,  is a human rights issue of concern to solicitors practising in the field. It is an area of concern for the Committee. Subject to its resource limitations, the Committee will monitor any significant human rights developments in this field.

2. The Committee will write to the JCHR expressing its interest in the issue (and asking to give oral evidence as a witness to the Inquiry).

3. The Committee will review the JCHR’s findings and if appropriate comment publicly on human rights aspects.

28 November 2018

Annex I Additional considerations

CURRENT LAW

The Research Report entitled “Injustice in Immigration Detention - Perspectives from legal professionals” commissioned by the Bar Council and written by Dr Anna Lindley of SOAS (University of London)[1] provides an excellent analysis of the present situation and the law applicable where there is applicable law as well as the practice and experience of those who are professionally involved.   It examines (1) the legal and policy framework and how the government practices immigration detention; (2) how legal processes work as mechanisms for people to challenge their detention; (3) detainees’ access to legal services and their capacity to engage with the legal system. The research, carried out over three months, draws on a review of official documents, research and statistical data, as well as 21 interviews with barristers, solicitors, immigration judges and other specialists.

She identifies a number of important aspects of the system for immigration detention:

• The legal and policy framework for immigration detention is flawed; 
• Poor standards of public administration have been normalised; 
• A genuine, robust framework to prevent harm in detention is needed; 
• Home Office assessment of the risk of absconding and risk of public harm on release is problematic; 
• Many people detained for long periods have some kind of criminal record, but there are legal or logistical barriers to deportation; 
• There is a lack of prompt, automatic court control, a key safeguarding principle; 
• Judicial review (JR) provides a way to challenge detention for some, but not all the people who are detained unlawfully; and 
• Many people struggle to secure the free legal representation they need to challenge their detention in court.

Each of these issues is important to consider in themselves, but they also interact with each other, as do the recommendations for change. Importantly, however, one issue cuts across and offers potential to address concerns in many different areas namely that there should be a time limit on detention.  Many other countries have immigration detention systems but only the UK has no time limit on detention.

STATISTICS

Latest statistics published in May 2017: The number of people entering detention in 2016 decreased by 11% to 28,908 from 32,447 in the previous year.

Over the same period there was a 14% decrease in those people leaving detention (from 33,226 to 28,661). The proportion of detainees being returned or voluntarily departing the UK on leaving detention increased slightly from 45% in 2015 to 47% in 2016. Conversely, the proportion of detainees granted temporary admission or release (TA/TR) decreased slightly from 43% to 42%.

As at the end of December 2016, 2,738 people were in detention, 5% more than the number recorded at the end of December 2015 (2,607).

Indefinite detention is expensive. The cost of running the detention esstate in 2013/14 was £164.4 million. £76 million a year is wasted on the long-term detention of detainee’s who are ultimately released. As the charity Detention Action state in their publication for the general election 2017: “if the Home Office could identify these un-returnable migrants earlier the equivalent of three detention centres could be closed without reducing the number of migrants returned.” In addition, the Home Office paid out almost £14 million in compensation following claims for unlawful detention. The latest figures show that the government has spent £523.5 million on detaining people for immigration reasons between April 2013 and March 2017 and that the cost of payment of damages awarded to immigrants who were detained unlawfully in the same period amounted to £16.2 million.[2]

LENGTH OF DETENTION

During 2016, 28,661 people left detention. Of these, 64% had been in detention for less than 29 days, 18% for between 29 days and 2 months, and 11% for between 2 and 4 months. Of the 1,848 (6%) remaining, 179 had been in detention for between 1 and 2 years, and 29 for 2 years or longer.

In the same period, over a third (35%) of people leaving detention had been detained for 7 days or less (10,143). Of these, 54% (5,482) were returned; 43% (4,398) were granted TA/TR; and the remaining 3% were bailed (50), granted LTE or LTR (38), or released for other reasons (175). Of the 208 detained for 12 months or more, 38% were bailed, 29% were returned, and 29% were granted TA/TR.

The UK Border Agency refuses to publish statistics on how many people released from detention later abscond. However, charities and NGOs have gathered evidence to show that the vast majority do not disappear many are still waiting appeals and hope to be allowed to be granted legal status in the UK so they have strong reasons not to disappear others live with children partners and families.[3]

As at 31 December 2016, the longest length of time a person had been currently detained for was 1,333 days.

CHILDREN IN DETENTION

There were 71 children entering detention in 2016, 56% lower than the previous year (163). This was a 94% fall compared with the beginning of the data series in 2009 (1,119). Only 3 children entered detention in the last quarter of 2016 reflecting the closure of Cedars Pre-departure Accommodation (PDA) on 17 October 2016 and the temporary closure of Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) for refurbishment.

Of the 74 children leaving detention in 2016, 52 were granted TA/TR and 17 were returned from the UK. Of those leaving detention, 67 had been detained for 7 days or less, 3 for between 8 and 14 days, 1 for between 15 and 28 days and 3 for 29 days or longer. There were no children in detention as at 31 December 2016.

People entering, leaving and in detention, solely under Immigration Act powers

Year              Entering detention              Leaving detention              In detention (1)

2012              28,905                               28,575                                           2,685

2013              30,418                                           30,030                                           2,796

2014              30,364                                           29,674                                           3,462

2015              32,447                                           33,226                                           2,607

2016              28,908                                          28,661                                           2,738

Change: latest year              -3,539              -4,565              +131

Percentage change              -11%              -14%              +5%

Immigration detainees are being held for "excessively long" periods in "prison-like" conditions, HMIP says. 

In July 2016 the Government quietly ditched its policy of ending child detention in prison-style immigration centres after it announced the closure of new flagship accommodation for families being removed from the UK.  On the final day of parliament before the summer recess, Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill put out a written statement announcing the closure of the accommodation and its transfer of families to a secure, chain-link-fenced immigration removal centre. In the low-key statement Mr Goodwill confirmed the closure of Cedars, which was only built in 2011 as part of the Coalition government’s pledge to end child immigration detention. The families and children living were moved to a self-contained unit at Tinsley House removal centre – a secure detention centre surrounded by a chain-link fence, run by G4S that resembles a prison.

Lisa Nandy, a Labour MP, said the policy announcement effectively amounted to the scrapping of the Government’s pledge to end child detention.  “On the last day of Parliament Ministers quietly abandoned the promise to end the immigration detention of children,” she said. “Totally indefensible.”[4] 

ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Almost 1 in 3 detainees have never had legal representation while in detention.  79% of client who were able to access free legal advice were not taken on as clients under the Legal Aid Scheme.  62% of detainees worked on their own immigration case.  28% of those who had accessed legal advice lost their representation because of a transfer to another IRC.  43% of detainees without legal representation cited money as the main reason they were unable to get legal assistance.  As to time spent waiting for free legal advice 48% had to wait less than a week, 25% waited 1-2 weeks, 14% waited 2-3 weeks and 13% waited more than 3 weeks.[5]

BID’s Policy & Research Manager John Hopgood said: “The situation described by detainees underlines the bleak situation that people being held in immigration detention face – made pointlessly and unjustly worse by the Government’s ill-conceived cuts to legal aid.”  Cuts in legal aid have reduced the estimated number receiving legal help from 80 per cent to 50 per cent, meaning that thousands of people waiting to find out if they will be granted the right to remain in the UK are doing so without any legal help at all.

The Bach Commission Report of September 2017 stated: “The biggest impact of LASPO on those seeking immigration/asylum advice is the loss of advice for some very vulnerable clients that do not meet the new criteria. These clients will have to fund their advice themselves which is not possible for many. This means that they have to represent themselves which is difficult in an extremely complex area of law that is constantly changing.”[6]

HOME OFFICE ADULTS AT RISK POLICY

Following extensive criticism of the detention of vulnerable people and those with mental health issues in the report by Stephen Shaw in 2016 the Home Office published a new Adults at Risk policy setting out a framework for identifying different levels of vulnerability by using a series of categories. The Home Office states that it aims to “ensure that genuine cases of vulnerability are consistently identified in order to ensure that vulnerable people are not detained inappropriately”. Critics who have examined the policy and its application say that rather than reducing the number of vulnerable people held in detention the policy instead equips the Home Office with more arguments to refuse people’s release when they are found to be vulnerable by medical practitioners. An analysis by the charity Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) shows that 80% of detainees have been defined as being at risk by a medical practitioner. The diagnosed conditions and vulnerabilities were most commonly PTSD, depression and suicidal tendencies with two thirds of detainees being recorded as torture victims. When information of this nature is passed to the Home Office it does not result in the detainee’s release from detention. Indeed, the Home Office has been known to argue that treatment would be more effective within detention than outside of it. 

And Dr Piyal Sen, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, who specialises in the mental health of detainees, says the Home Office too often puts the requirement of immigration detention above the immigrant’s mental well-being. He accuses the Home Office of ignoring evidence in a significant number of cases and ignoring what the medical professionals are saying. The RCP estimates that at any one time over 50% of immigration detainees have some mental problem.[7]

CONDITIONS AMOUNT TO TORTURE

Peter Clarke the current HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, has called for section 35 reports, which examine whether a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by detention, including if they may have been the victim of torture, to be full professional assessments.  “When a doctor declares a detainee unfit for detention, the detainee should be released unless there are exceptional circumstances, documented on file and explained in writing to the detainee, their legal representatives and the doctor,” he says.  He adds that too many section 35 reports provide insufficient detail and fail to comment on post-traumatic stress disorder or how continued detention has affected the health of those concerned.  “In our sample of 10 reports, the Home Office found evidence of torture in nine reports but maintained detention of all but one of the men involved, despite this clear evidence of vulnerability,” he says.  A Home Office spokesperson said the detention and removal of those who had no lawful basis to stay in the UK were essential parts of effective immigration. “When people are detained, it is for the minimum time possible, and detention is reviewed on a regular basis. The detainee’s welfare remains of the utmost importance throughout.”[8]

SLAVE WAGES

Detainees are paid 1 pound an hour for working in detention centres. Toufique Hossain, solicitor at Duncan Lewis, is quoted describing this situation as ‘slavery’. He explains: ‘They are working as cleaners, barbers, laundry workers, litter-pickers and food servers. This work ought to be done by workers paid at least the minimum wage. If this isn’t slavery, I don’t know what is’. This is not the first time that wages in immigration detention centres have been raised as an issue. The Home Office justified the work as voluntary and key to detainees’ mental wellbeing, recreational and intellectual and providing relief from boredom.[9]  Yet this raises the question of the private companies that run detention centres benefiting from unpaid or underpaid labour. The Stephen Shaw review of welfare in detention evoked the need to re-evaluate wages for detainees, yet we have yet to hear from the internal review carried out by the Home Office (which was due to be released last year).[10]

WINDRUSH ERA CITIZENS

Despite the massive amount of press interest in the scandal relating to the Windrush era citizens, so far all the government has revealed is that possibly 60 people have been deported but there has been no mention as to whether any or all of those were detained in immigration detention before deportation. It seems likely that many of them will have been detained.

DEATHS IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRES

The Institute of Race Relations published details of the deaths in immigration detention between 1989 and 2017.[11]  There have been thirty-four deaths in immigration removal centres since 1989; three women and the rest men. Harmondsworth detention centre accounts for nine deaths; five people have died at Colnbrook and Morton Hall; three at Yarl’s Wood and the Verne and two each at Campsfield, Dungavel and Haslar. One person has died at each of the detention centres Dover and Oakington (now closed) and Pennine House (a short-term holding facility).  Inquest states there have been two further deaths in 2018.[12]

CHANGES TO IMMIGRATION BAIL WITH EFFECT FROM 15 JANUARY 2018

Any migrant lawfully in the UK without leave to remain (including asylum seekers) is technically on immigration bail. This is extremely confusing because if you are detained you then have to apply for immigration bail in order to be released from detention.

Application for immigration bail must be to the Home Office initially and, if this is refused, only then can you apply to the First Tier Tribunal to have a bail hearing in front of the judge. The tribunal is no longer permitted to grant bail in any circumstances for eight days after arrival or if removal is to be within 14 days effectively giving the Home Office the power to postpone bail applications. There appears no time limit on the Home Office determination of the initial bail application.

On a more positive note automatic bail hearings should be provided for those who have been detained for four months and who have not applied for bail themselves or with the help of a lawyer.

Annex II HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES ENGAGED BY THE PRACTICE OF IMMIGRATION DETENTION

Article 9 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law”

The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention further states that immigration detention should gradually be abolished, because migrants in an irregular situation have not committed any crime.  The UN Human Rights Committee has interpreted the right to liberty and the prohibition of arbitrary arrest/detention of Article 9 (1) of the ICCPR as requiring that any measure imposing a restriction on this right “must be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in light of the circumstances.” As a consequence, the legal basis in domestic legislation for any detention should establish the permissible grounds for detention and “define them with sufficient precision to avoid overly broad or arbitrary interpretation or application.” Given the prerequisites of necessity and proportionality, detention of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants in an irregular situation should be used as a measure of last resort and its necessity and proportionality should be evaluated in each individual case. In order to establish that detention is necessary, and not arbitrary within the meaning of the ICCPR, States should consider less invasive means of achieving the same ends, i.e. whether alternatives to detention exist and can be applied. 

Automatic, mandatory or collective detention is considered arbitrary and contrary to international law.  When detention is undertaken, international standards contain a number of procedural safeguards that should be guaranteed. According to the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, migrants’ “detention must be ordered and approved by a judge and there should be automatic, regular and judicial, not only administrative, reviews of detention in each individual case.” Furthermore, according to Article 9 (4) of the ICCPR, anyone who is deprived of his or her liberty is entitled “to take proceedings before a court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of the detention and order release if the detention is not lawful.” A maximum period of detention must be established by law and this may in no case be unlimited or of excessive length. Upon expiry of this period, the person should be automatically released.

International law also requires conditions of detention to be humane and dignified. According to Article 10 of the ICCPR: “All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” Another human right that enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic societies is the prohibition of torture and inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and of the person’s conduct. The prohibition of torture is a long-standing principle of customary international law and is reaffirmed in several international and regional human rights treaties. It also holds relevance for the conditions of detention such as length of detention and the quality of the detention facility.

Annex III WHO RUNS OUR IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTRES?

HM Prison Service:

Moreton Hall

HMPS runs Morton Hall.  It also ran The Verne at Portland, Dorset until it closed on 31 December 2017 and Dover which closed in October 2015.  The Verne was so far from any centres of population and difficult (and expensive) to access that many detainees had few if any visits.  It was described as being well run by HMIP but the accommodation was poor and the prison needed substantial upgrading.  Dover IRC was closed in October 2015.  Like The Verne it was far from any deportation points and difficult (and expensive) to access.  The speed of its closure meant detainees were not treated with "dignity and respect" during transfers, it has been claimed by the independent International Mission Board (IMB). The IMB acknowledged the centre was in a "poor condition" and was not located near airports so detainees could be removed quickly.[13] They had previously told the Home Office that detainees in the “prison-like” immigration center feel unhappy, lonely and stressed.  An attempt to find out what the Report given to the Home Office contained which led to the closure was refused under Section 35(1)(a) of the FOI Act 2000 which provides exemption for information relating to the formulation or development of Government policy.[14]

In 2010 inspectors from the Prison Inspectorate were concerned to find that:

• the high number of movements of detainees at night continued to be disruptive;
• there was a high level of strip searching and poor governance of it;
• the quality of information provided by immigration staff to detainees about their cases had not improved and remained inadequate;
• detainees were locked up for too long and experienced too many restrictions on their freedom of movement;
• welfare support remained inadequate despite attempts being made to improve it; and
• detainees did not receive sufficient practical help prior to discharge.[15]

Moreton Hall IRC:

A peaceful protest occurred on November 13th  2015 at Morton Hall over the length of time detainees were being held at the centre.[16]  Two men, a Palestinian and a Malaysian, protested by climbing on to the roof in September 2017.  Their protest was because of the 'disrespect' and 'inhumane' treatment they were experiencing at the facility.[17] An inquiry is to look at this IRC after four people died there last year. Investigations are currently being carried out into the deaths of the four people and inquests are due to take place this year.

Chair of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Yvette Cooper has called for conditions at Morton Hall, near Swinderby, to be discussed.   It will be included in an ongoing inquiry looking at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre, near Gatwick Airport.[18]  A letter was written by people detained at Morton Hall IRC and sent to Glasgow Unity Centre following the death of Mr Carlington Spencer on October 2nd 2017.  The letter describes in detail the failure of staff, including medical staff, to diagnose that he had suffered a stroke and to hospitalise him until 36 hours after he suffered the stroke.  Their diagnosis (without examination), was that he was high on drugs.[19]  It is the only detention centre where batons are used by staff and detainees describe it as very much like an old-fashioned prison rather than a detention centre.[20]  In November 2017, the Prisons Chief Inspectorate published a report following a visit to Moreton Hall which found the number of incidents of self-harm had risen threefold since the previous inspection in 2013. The report said: "Many detainees, especially those detained for the longest periods, were extremely frustrated.  Antisocial behaviour was not uncommon and the number of detainee-on-detainee assaults was higher than in other centres."[21]  The report also found that just 19 per cent of the 400 detainees were happy with the food served up which was described as being the best that could be managed “within the constraints of the limited budget available”.[22]

G4S

G4S run Brook House and Tinsley House. The company has faced severe criticism over its management of the two IRCs.   Ben Saunders, the director of Brook House near Gatwick airport, was placed on administrative leave in September 2017. An undercover BBC Panorama investigation over allegations of bullying and abuse was made with the assistance of an employee who was horrified at what he had experienced. Saunders was the head of two G4S-run IRCs near Gatwick. He had previously run the Medway Secure Training Centre in Kent where there were allegations that the children detained in that centre were maltreated. A Guardian investigation and another Panorama undercover operation exposed the treatment meted out to children. G4S gave up its children’s services division after the exposure.[23]

In one scene from the programme, a custody officer brags: “We don’t cringe at breaking bones. If I killed a man, I wouldn’t be bothered. I’d just carry on.” In another incident, a detainee was self-harming by trying to strangle himself and putting a mobile phone battery in his mouth. A custody manager allegedly remarked: “Plug him in and he’ll be a Duracell bunny.”

G4S has been accused of falsifying records to make profits of more than 20 per cent running an immigration detention centre marred by abuse and drugs.[24]

In February 2017 The Home Office has announced that G4S will run welfare support services for families awaiting deportation in one of its detention facilities. It took over from Barnardos who previously provided services at Cedars, a UK Visa and Immigration ‘pre-departure accommodation’ facility. But G4S have a history of claims of abuse, neglect and even a death in their custody. As the Independent said: “Far from guaranteeing welfare, will the new providers expose children and their families to an environment whose safety is routinely questioned?”[25]

HMIP inspected Brook House in 2017 and found that there had been significant improvements. However, inspectors were concerned to find that:

• the average length of detention at Brook House had increased from 28 to 48 days but there did not appear to have been any analysis as to why this had happened;
• there were some serious delays in some individual cases, with 23 detainees held for over a year and four of these for over two years; and
• the residential units very closely resembled the conditions found in prisons, and these were exacerbated by poor ventilation and unsatisfactory sanitary facilities. 

Tinsley House was one of the best performing immigration removal centres, but needed to give some matters more attention, said Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons in a report published in 2014. However, inspectors were concerned to find that:

• detainees at risk of self-harm were well cared for, but those who needed constant supervision were held in the care and separation unit, which was bleak;
• some detainees’ cases had been progressed too slowly, resulting in prolonged, unnecessary and therefore possibly unlawful detention;
• rule 35 reports, which deal with allegations of torture and special conditions, had resulted in more releases than usual, but they were of variable quality and were not given sufficient weight by the Home Office;
• a minority of staff were less respectful and distant with detainees and some staff did not always knock before entering rooms;
• escort arrangements for families were unacceptable; and
• inspectors were not assured that the management and risk assessments required by the different groups held in the family unit were given enough attention.[26]

The Sunday Times reported seven deaths at HMP Birmingham, also run by G4S, in 2017 and a further six by April 2018.  The Institute for race relations claimed that 91 people died in detention or shortly after release from detention between 1989 and 2015

MITIE

Mitie runs Campsfield House, Colnbrook and Harmondsworth IRC’s.  Peter Clarke, the Chief Inspector of Prisons highlighted concerns about aspects of their security regime that he says would be out of place in a prison in a report published in March 2018. Inspectors found detainees once again routinely being handcuffed when attending outside appointments, after revealing in 2013 that an 84 year old terminally ill Canadian man had been kept in handcuffs as he died in hospital. Clarke says many areas of the Harmondsworth IRC run by Mitie were dirty, bedbugs were endemic, and some areas had infestations of mice. “The centre had failed to progress significantly since our last visit in 2015,” he says. “For the third consecutive inspection, we found considerable failings in the areas of safety and respect.”  “Detainees, many identified as vulnerable, were not being adequately safeguarded. Some were held for unacceptably long periods. Mental health needs were often not met. Detainees were subject to some disproportionate security restrictions and living conditions were below decent standards. He concluded “It is time for the Home Office and contractors to think again about how to ensure that more substantial progress is made by the time we return.”[27] More than 20 men have been held at Harmondsworth for more than a year. [28]

Mitie have recently decided to limit the amount of time that detainees can spend out of their cells as “efficiency measures” (presumably to do with staffing) meaning that detainees will spend a minimum of 12 hours a day locked up.

Campsfield House

An unannounced inspection by HMPI took place in 2014.  The Report of the Inspection[29] stated “Overall, this was a very positive inspection. Staff and managers at Campsfield House should be congratulated in dealing professionally and sensitively with detainees who were going through what, for many, was a difficult and unhappy time. However, whatever the strengths of the centre, detention should not be used for children, victims of torture or anyone for unreasonable lengths of time. Further improvements to national processes are required to ensure this does not happen.”  The issues that needed to be addressed were:

• Some detainees had been adversely affected by significant weaknesses in the immigration processes outside the control of those working in the centre;
• 14 detainees had been held in the centre for more than six months and some of these delays were unreasonable;
• three children had been held since 2013: in two cases it took too long to carry out an age assessment and in one, the detention had been authorised despite knowledge that the detainee was under 18; and
• rule 35 reports, which should have provided a safeguard for detainees who had been tortured, did not provide adequate clinical judgements to inform caseworkers’ decisions.

Dot Coomber, in charge of education at Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, was presented with a national award by Princess Anne in March 2018. The award was one of 11 handed out by the Butler Trust - which supports excellence in prisons, probation and youth justice - out of 350 nominations across Britain. "As head of education at an immigration removal centre, Dot set out to find solutions for a group with multiple languages, cultures, and nationalities, and often only in detention for short or uncertain periods.  She has delivered impressive results that are a real testament to her dedication.”[30]

This is a single richly deserving example in an otherwise miserable picture.

Colnbrook

Asylum seeker Khalid Shahzad was found dead at Wilmslow train station as he travelled back to Manchester from Colnbrook IRC in 2013.  He was released because he was deemed too sick to remain in detention.[31]

Iraqi Zana Yusif killed 64-year-old Bangladeshi national Tarek Chowdhury in a cell at Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre on 1 December.  At the Old Bailey in May 2017, the 32-year-old admitted manslaughter by diminished responsibility but denied murder.  The prosecution accepted the plea because he had an "abnormality of the mind" when the attack happened.[32]

Zayed Khan, 26, arrived in the UK in 2016 after fleeing Afghanistan following the murder of his mother in a bomb blast carried out by the Taliban, who later attempted to recruit him. His medical notes express concerns he may have been a victim of torture.  Mr Khan, who had been at Colnbrook IRC for five months, reportedly smashed his head against a wall outside a courtroom after his bail application was refused. He later proceeded to sew his lips together with a needle in protest against his continued detention.[33]

Nana Varveropoulou, who set up a photography workshop at Colnbrook which ran from 2012 to 2014, calls her photographic record of life inside Colnbrook IRC No Man’s Land.  She provided the detainees with cameras to record their lives in the IRC.  Colnbrook, which houses more than 400 detainees, is described by her as “a shadowy place where the media spotlight seldom penetrates.” Serco – which ran it until 2014, when Mitie took over the contract – says 80,000 had passed through since it was opened in 2004. In her discussions with them they all talked about the same things: “such as time and how, whereas in prison you have a three-year sentence and you’re counting down, in detention you have no timeframe at all. We had endless conversations about what that does to your mental health.” Other themes that emerged were insomnia, anxiety, patience, loneliness, isolation, stagnation and hope.  She was refused access to the women’s section of the IRC.[34]

Colnbrook is the securest of the IRC’s. Built in 2004 to category B prisons standards which means that if it was a regular prison the people held inside would be considered a danger to the public. While some of the people detained at Colnbrook are former offenders, all have completed their sentences and are held only for administrative purposes related to their immigration status.

An unannounced Inspection by HMIP in March 2016 resulted in a Report[35] which stated that conditions had improved at Colnbrook and detainees were able to move more freely around the IRC although much remains to be done.  Inspectors were concerned to find that:

• some areas of the centre were in need of refurbishment and the induction unit in particular was very poor;
• chronic staffing shortages affected the continuity and consistency of health care; and
• although care for those with severe mental health needs was generally good, it was concerning that people with such severe illnesses were in immigration detention at all.

Harmondsworth IRC:

Harmondsworth is the largest detention site in Europe and at its last HMPI inspection in October 2017 had 552 detainees. Harmondsworth has been at the centre of controversy for years and has been run by a variety of outsourcing groups. In 2004 and 2006 there were major riots at the detention centre. In 2009 running of the facility was handed to US group Geo. Over the five years that Geo ran the facility, six detainees died in Harmondsworth – making it the deadliest place for migrants to be detained in the UK. In September 2014 the contract for running Harmondsworth was awarded to Mitie. The company said it plans to merge Harmondsworth with the adjacent Colnbrook facility – making the largest detention facility in Europe with more than 1,000 detainees inside. Before winning the Harmondsworth and Colnbrook contracts, Mitie's experience of running immigration detention centres was the small Campsfield House facility in Oxfordshire. However, the Home Office contracts made Mitie the UK's largest immigration detention manager.

The report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons in 2018 found 23 of those had been held for more than a year and in one case, a man had been held for four years.  In 90% of cases examined during the inspection, people had been tortured before coming to the UK but remained in detention.  It also found handcuffs were routinely used on detainees when attending appointments outside of the centre, even though there was no "evidence of risk".  Inspectors found:

“Worryingly, in nearly all of a sample of cases, the Home Office accepted evidence that detainees had been tortured but maintained detention regardless. Insufficient attention was given to post-traumatic stress and other mental health problems.”

While violence was not high, a high number of detainees felt unsafe. Detainees told inspectors this was because of the uncertainty associated with their cases, but also because a large number of their fellow detainees seemed mentally unwell, frustrated or angry. In his report the Chief Inspector Peter Clarke, said it was the third inspection in a row with “considerable failings” of safety and respect. “Detainees, many identified as vulnerable, were not being adequately safeguarded. Some were held for unacceptably long periods. Mental health needs were often not met and detainees were subject to some disproportionate security restrictions and living conditions were below standards”

Drug use was an increasing problem.[36]

SERCO

Serco runs Yarl’s Wood IRC, Britain’s largest detention centre for women facing deportation.  It has suffered a succession of damaging allegations since it began managing the facility in 2007.  As well as the sexual misconduct and rape claims, they include accusations that women have been locked up for long spells and pregnant detainees held without justification.  Two staff members were fired for engaging in sexual activity with a detainee, while a third was sacked for failing to act when the detainee reported the incident.  Channel 4 filmed undercover in Yarls Wood in 2015 exposing abuse by guards. The Home Office has been condemned after it renewed Serco’s contract to run Yarl’s Wood in 2014 and agreed to pay them £70m over the next eight years.  Despite its history and the allegations made the Home Office stated the company had emerged as the preferred contractor following a “comprehensive re-tendering process”. A spokesman said: “Serco’s bid demonstrated its offer was the best in meeting quality and cost criteria and providing value for money for the taxpayer.”  The Home Office has refused to carry out an independent inquiry into the allegations leaving Serco to conduct its own internal investigation.[37] More than 100 women detained indefinitely in Yarl’s Wood began a hunger strike in February 2018, to protest against the Home Office’s policies and treatment of detainees.[38]  The Home Office sought to dismiss the hunger strike as a refusal to eat for religious or dietary reasons.  A detainee said: “We are detained indefinitely and we are refusing food because we are desperate at the treatment we endure by the Home Office, not because of religious beliefs but rather fundamental ethics regarding our rights as human beings.”[39] Another said:  “We feel voiceless, forgotten and ignored. This is a desperate measure due to desperate circumstances.”

The United Nations Special Rapporteur for violence against women was barred entry to Yarl’s Wood by the Home Office.[40]

GEO GROUP

GEO Group is an American prisons company.  It runs Dungavel in Lanarkshire, an immigration centre 50 miles south of Glasgow, holding 249 detainees and has caused suffering since its creation in 2001.  Former detainees have been demanding the closure of Dungavel.  They allege unfair and indefinite detention and cramped living conditions, locking up detainees for no reason and treating detainees like animals. Yasmine Clara, from the campaign group We Will Rise said in 2015: “There is no way to operate a humane or safe detention system. This has been proven time and time again through deaths, suicide attempts, hunger strikes and lacking health care.  The most recent reports I have received about Dungavel specifically include allegations of guards beating detainees, one who hid under a bed and was dragged out amidst laughter by four large men and forced into a van, another who was admitted into hospital.”[41]   GEO Group faces criminal charges over the death of Prince Fosu who was found dead on the concrete floor of his cell in Harmondsworth, on 30 October 2012. The Crown Prosecution Service announced in 2017 that GEO Group UK Ltd and Nestor Primecare Services Ltd would face prosecution under health and safety laws. GEO ran Harmondsworth at the time while Nestor was responsible for the healthcare of those detained there. Both companies are alleged to have breached section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, by failing to take reasonable care of health and safety. The maximum penalty on conviction is an unlimited fine.[42]

TASCOR

Pennine House is a short-term holding facility (STHF) run by the private contractor Tascor on behalf of the Home Office. The facility is one of only two residential STHFs in the immigration estate (the other is Larne House in Northern Ireland). Pennine House is located landside at Manchester Airport’s Terminal 2. The facility holds adult foreign nationals subject to immigration control against whom the Home Office is taking enforcement action. Thirty-two detainees can be held in eight rooms. Many detainees arrive from police stations after being picked up in the community. Some are moved between immigration removal centres (IRCs), while others have been refused entry to the UK at the airport and are waiting to fly to their country of origin.

In its report on an unannounced visit in January 2016[43], HMIP said: “Little had changed since our last visit in 2013. Detainees felt safe, but we were concerned that men and women were still held together and shared the same facilities. Exhausting and unnecessary overnight transfers still took place. The facility remained austere and had no natural light. While this was not a problem for those held for a few hours, it was unsuitable for those detained for days at a time. Activities available were adequate for short-stay detainees, but outside areas were poor and access depended on staff availability. Detainees had good access to telephones but there were excessive and unnecessary restrictions on use of the internet. The internet should become a meaningful resource for communication, information and recreation for detainees at all immigration facilities. Detainees should have access to all documents and websites, including social networking sites and Skype, unless an individual risk assessment indicates otherwise.”

Other recommendations (some of which are repeated from the Report of the Inspection in 2013 demonstrating that nothing had changed) included:

• The reception area should have suitable private searching and interview spaces;
• Written induction information specific to Pennine House should be available in a range of languages;
• Staff should be familiar with emergency response procedures, and an ambulance should be called immediately an emergency code is called;
• The facility should develop policy and procedures for managing vulnerable adult detainees in liaison with the local director of adult social services and the local safeguarding adults board;
• Staff should be trained in the identification of trafficking victims, and concerns relating to trafficking should be shared by DCOs with immigration staff at the earliest opportunity;
• In relation to children there should be warm bedding, and measures should be taken to create a more comfortable, less austere environment and women’s accommodation should be separated from men’s, with bedrooms, toilets and showers and an association area inaccessible to male detainees;
• All detainees should have unimpeded access to welcoming outside areas;
• There should be policies and procedures for the management of transgender detainees and all staff should be familiar with these.