Skip to content
Donate

Author: anthony

Report of APPG Members’ visit to Napier Barracks

Read Full Visit Report Here

 

On 7 April 2022, the APPG on Immigration Detention published the report of its Members’ visit to Napier Barracks, which took place in early February this year.

An inquiry undertaken last year by the APPG found that being accommodated at Napier left many people seeking asylum feeling dehumanised and suffering a profound deterioration in their mental health, in some cases to the point of attempting suicide.

The APPG Members visiting in February found that little had changed at the site. They said they remain “deeply concerned” for the individuals accommodated there, calling for Napier to be closed with “immediate and permanent effect”.

A ruling by the High Court in June 2021 found that Napier Barracks did not meet minimum standards for asylum accommodation. The parliamentarians’ report warns that changes introduced by the Home Office after the ruling have failed to address the fundamental problems at the site, with serious concerns continuing in relation to:

  • inadequate safeguarding of vulnerable people, such as victims of torture and trafficking, with little being done to identify residents who are in need of support
  • the physical environment of the site, which was run-down, isolated and bleak, with many buildings in an extremely poor state of repair
  • a near total lack of privacy and private spaces at the site, with residents continuing to be accommodated in dormitories of up to 12-14 people and having to share showers, toilets, and other facilities
  • noise levels in the dormitories, and the sleep deprivation and the negative impact on residents’ mental health resulting from this
  • inadequate access for residents to healthcare and legal advice, and the difficulties they face in engaging with their asylum claim at the site
  • the site’s prison-like nature and military features, including security checks upon entering and the presence of security guards patrolling
  • the lack of autonomy, choice and control over their daily lives that residents experience at the site.

Alison Thewliss MP for Glasgow Central and Chair of the APPG, who took part in the visit, said:

“It was deeply concerning to see how poor the conditions in the Napier Barracks were.

“Residents in the barracks are living in the most dreadful of circumstances, and this must end.

“Many of those living in the barracks have fled conflict and have suffered unimaginable trauma – they should be treated with dignity and respect, and allowed to rebuild their lives.”

The publication of the report came on the same day as a debate on Napier in the House of Lords. The debate was seeking to challenge legislation brought in by the Home Office last year granting itself planning permission to use Napier Barracks until at least 2026.

Lib Dem peer Lord Paddick, who organised the debate, referenced the findings from the APPG’s visit and inquiry in his speech. You can read the full debate transcript here.

 

Media coverage

 

Former residents at the barracks said:

“It would be difficult to design a system that more perfectly delivers despair and deteriorating human health and mental capacity than these ‘asylum camps’

“My initial reaction was shock as I was driven through the barbed-wire-topped gates of an army camp and faced with a black metal firing target of a soldier. … Between us we had fled torture, false imprisonment, war and civil conflict. We now found ourselves inside exactly the sort of institution many of us had already experienced in our home countries and which brought back terrible memories and stirred up traumas.

“There have protestors outside of the camp gates. They shout and set off fireworks. It is terrifying as it sounds like gunfire. … they were there they took photographs and videos of me. I have seen that some videos of residents in the camp have been posted on YouTube … it might put my family in Syria at risk because the government in Syria may then identify me as an asylum seeker.”

– Kenan describing Penally Barracks

 

“Places like Napier barracks do not represent the values of the people of this country. It encourages discrimination, hostility and hate. Vulnerable people have been suffering mentally and physically by staying there. The ones who were moved out from Napier barracks are still dealing with the mental health consequences of it. their rights were harmed and their dignity was disrespected and it all happened while they were present in the country and they had legal support. I cannot imagine how worse it can be if they were processed offshore without anyone to assess and observe”.

– Erfan, describing Napier Barracks

 

APPG press release

Cross-party call by parliamentarians to end dehumanising quasi-detention of people seeking asylum

In the wake of the Channel crossing tragedy, where 27 people lost their lives trying to reach the UK, a cross-party group of parliamentarians has today published a report calling on the government to end its use of Napier Barracks in Kent to accommodate people seeking asylum. The report also recommends the scrapping of government plans for more large-scale accommodation based on Napier as a pilot.

The quasi-detention sites examined in the report replicate many of the features found in detained settings – including visible security measures, surveillance, shared living quarters, lack of privacy, poor access to healthcare, legal advice and means of communication, and isolation from the wider community.

The report is the result of an inquiry by the APPG on Immigration Detention into the use of the sites. Led by a panel of 10 parliamentarians from both government and opposition parties, the APPG Inquiry gathered written and oral evidence from over 30 participants – including people accommodated at the sites and charities working directly with them, medical and legal experts, and on-site contractors.

The report explains how features of the sites – including their prison-like conditions – make them “fundamentally unsuitable” as asylum accommodation. For survivors of torture, trafficking or other serious forms of violence – as many asylum-seekers are – such conditions can cause them to relive past abuses and be highly re-traumatising.

The report also documents serious operational failings by the Home Office and its contractors in their running of the sites. It details how people accommodated at the sites have been subjected to “appalling treatment and conditions” which has left them feeling “dehumanised, exhausted and suffering a profound deterioration in their mental health, in some cases to the point of attempting suicide”.

In August this year, the government extended its use of Napier Barracks until 2025 without consultation. The High Court has now granted permission for a judicial review challenging this decision. The government has also confirmed that Napier may act as a pilot for the new asylum accommodation centres proposed in the Nationality and Borders Bill currently making its way through Parliament.

In its report, the APPG Inquiry Panel makes clear its opposition to these centres. It urges the government instead to ensure that people seeking asylum are housed in decent, safe accommodation in the community that supports their well-being and recovery from trauma, facilitates their engagement with the asylum process, and allows them to build links with their community.

In March this year, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration & Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) found two of the sites, Napier Barracks and Penally Camp, to be “impoverished, run-down and unsuitable for long-term accommodation”.[1] Similarly, in a high-profile case the High Court ruled in June that Napier Barracks failed to meet minimum standards of accommodation for asylum seekers, and that for a period residents were unlawfully detained there under purported Covid rules.[2]

Evidence submitted to the APPG Inquiry demonstrated that few improvements had been made by the Home Office since these serious concerns were raised.

 

 

Alison Thewliss (right), MP for Glasgow Central and Chair of the APPG on Immigration Detention, commented:

“The report makes for sober reading. It has highlighted the myriad ways in which the Home Office is comprehensively failing some of the most vulnerable people in society. Those forced to stay in quasi-detention accommodation have included children, people who have survived torture or trafficking, and other at-risk groups

“Our worst fears have been confirmed that this type of accommodation is not only inappropriate, but downright harmful.

“The Home Office have presided over a litany of failures- not only are the sites themselves unsuitable, but their running and mismanagement of Napier Barracks and other large scale accommodation units has actively contributed to poor mental and physical health outcomes for residents, with barely existent safeguarding.

“The accounts of witnesses were heart-breaking and painted a picture of misery and a disregard for medical and legal rights. It is even more worrying that the Home Office themselves described this situation as a ‘pilot project’, suggesting this is the beginning of a new approach. Plans for ‘offshoring’ in the Nationalities and Borders Bill being debated this week certainly imply that there is worse to come, and we should not stand for it.

“The Home Office must listen to experts and survivors of this disastrous scheme and put a stop to quasi-detention once and for all.”

 

Notes

  1. For media enquiries, please contact Elspeth Macdonald on contact@appgdetention.org.uk / 07784 034660.
  2. Former residents at Napier and Penally have kindly offered to be interviewed. Please contact Elspeth Macdonald (contact details above) if this is of interest.
  3. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention comprises over 40 parliamentarians from across all main political parties who share concerns about the use of immigration detention in the UK. More information about the group, including its full membership list, is available at detention.org.uk.
  4. More information about the inquiry, including links to the written and oral evidence collected, are available at https://appgdetention.org.uk/inquiry-into-quasi-detention/.
  5. The inquiry panel members were:Alison Thewliss MP (SNP) – APPG chair
    Paul Blomfield MP (Labour)
    Wendy Chamberlain MP (Liberal Democrat)
    Mary Foy MP (Labour)
    Richard Fuller MP (Conservative)
    Helen Hayes MP (Labour)
    Anne McLaughlin MP (SNP)
    Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Labour)
    Lord Roberts of Llandudno (Liberal Democrat)
    Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

[1] See: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/an-inspection-of-the-use-of-contingency-asylum-accommodation-key-findings-from-site-visits-to-penally-camp-and-napier-barracks

[2] See: R (NB & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 1489 (Admin)

‘Fictional’ process to exclude vulnerable from immigration detention signals little hope for Rwanda deportees

The Medical Justice “Harmed Not Heard” report published today, 25th April 2022, evidences that the Home Office process to identify and release highly vulnerable people in immigration detention is totally and utterly flawed.

The report analyses Medical Justice clinical assessments carried out between July and December 2021 for 45 clients detained in various immigration removal centres (IRCs) across the UK. These clients’ histories included severe trauma, significant mental health issues, and being at risk of suicide. Our findings include:

  • 100% of these clients were assessed as at clinical risk of harm caused by detention and 82% had already experienced deterioration in their mental state by the time they were seen by a Medical Justice clinician. Not a single one of them had a safeguarding report, as they should have done, from the IRC healthcare department to identify them to the Home Office as at risk of harm under a process known as Rule 35(1)
  • 67% had no communication of any type by the IRC healthcare department to the Home Office explicitly addressing the risk to their health from detention, prior to their assessment by a Medical Justice clinician
  • 87% had suicidal and/or self-harm thoughts recorded by a Medical Justice clinician at their assessment – all were deprived of a safeguarding report identifying their risk of suicide (Rule 35(2))
  • 76% were assessed by our clinicians as having symptoms or a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  • Only 51% saw a GP within the required 24 hours of admission to the IRC. Where identified as needing a Rule 35 safeguarding report, the average wait for an appointment was 29 days – one person’s appointment took 119 days
  • Home Office case-workers only released 1 of our 45 vulnerable clients when given information about their vulnerability under safeguarding processes, many of whom included torture survivors

“My health was getting worse in detention. I felt like I couldn’t live anymore, I didn’t know what to do, it was really really terrible … they knew what was happening to me, that I needed help…. There is no help. Ask healthcare, they blame it on the Home Office, and the Home Office will in turn blame healthcare. It feels like you are buried alive.”
Dr D, torture survivor, detained for 4 months despite deterioration in mental health

“Our medical evidence is that extensive Home Office failures mean its safeguarding processes are so ineffective they are basically fictional. Medical Justice fears torture survivors and people who are mentally ill and suicidal could be sent to Rwanda, given the ongoing gross Home Office systemic failures in safeguards for detained people. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Rwanda indicates that slavery and human trafficking survivors will be sent to Rwanda by the UK.

The impact on vulnerable asylum seekers could be devastating. Medical evidence of the harm inflicted would be beyond our reach so we would not be able to collate it in reports like “Harmed Not Heard” which are used to hold the government to account. These vulnerable asylum seekers could be ‘out of sight, out of mind’ in Rwanda with little chance of being heard.”
Medical Justice spokesperson

Evidence heard at public inquiry demonstrates extent of the Home Office’s safeguarding failures

The clinical expert appointed by the Brook House IRC Public Inquiry into mistreatment of detained people, Dr Jake Hard, concluded in March 2022 that there was “a complete systems failure” of safeguards to identify and release vulnerable people in detention. The Head of Healthcare, and the lead GP (still both working at Brook House IRC) gave evidence of systemic deficiencies and that they are continuing. Our report shows these deficiencies are not confined to Brook House and apply across the detention estate.

Victims of slavery and human trafficking, and possibly other vulnerable people, set to be sent to Rwanda

On 14th April 2022 the Home Office announced its MoU outlining how asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda. It commits to undertaking an “initial screening” of asylum seekers before sending them. The evidence from ‘Harmed Not Heard’, and from all our work since Medical Justice was founded in 2005, demonstrates that the Home Office is incapable of effective screening for vulnerabilities. This seems to be anticipated in the MoU which states the UK will take back and “resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees” in the UK. The MoU indicates that victims of modern slavery and human trafficking will be sent to Rwanda.

Vulnerable asylum seekers set to be held in quasi-detention in a tiny Yorkshire hamlet within weeks

Also announced on 14th April is an ‘Accommodation Centre’ at RAF Linton-on-Ouse which the Home Office plans to open in a matter of weeks, where it will place 1,500 asylum seeking men. Linton-on-Ouse is village, with 500 residents, according to one of them.

The Home Office has said that Napier Barracks, where a few hundred asylum seeking men are placed, is the ‘pilot’ for ‘Accommodation Centres’. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention considers Napier Barracks to be ‘quasi-detention’ and that asylum seekers placed there “have been subjected to appalling treatment and conditions”.

The APPG found that the Home Office had failed to apply it’s own “suitability criteria” which is meant to screen out highly vulnerable asylum seekers. The “suitability criteria” that the Home Office refers to for Linton-on-Ouse may be the same as at Napier, and as dysfunctional. The Home Office Factsheet for Linton-on-Ouse says “There will be robust processes in place to assess and manage vulnerabilities”, so it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, vulnerable asylum seekers are screened out.

Contact : Emma Ginn on 07786 517379 / emma.ginn@medicaljustice.org.uk

Harmed Not Heard – Report Released

Failures in safeguarding for the most vulnerable people in immigration detention

Read Full Report here

 

The Medical Justice “Harmed Not Heard” report evidences that the Home Office process to identify and release highly vulnerable people in immigration detention is totally and utterly flawed.

The report analyses Medical Justice clinical assessments carried out between July and December 2021 for 45 clients detained in various immigration removal centres (IRCs) across the UK. These clients’ histories included severe trauma, significant mental health issues, and being at risk of suicide. Our findings include:

  • 100% of these clients were assessed as at clinical risk of harm caused by detention and 82% had already experienced deterioration in their mental state by the time they were seen by a Medical Justice clinician. Not a single one of them had a safeguarding report, as they should have done, from the IRC healthcare department to identify them to the Home Office as at risk of harm under a process known as Rule 35(1)
  • 67% had no communication of any type by the IRC healthcare department to the Home Office explicitly addressing the risk to their health from detention, prior to their assessment by a Medical Justice clinician
  • 87% had suicidal and/or self-harm thoughts recorded by a Medical Justice clinician at their assessment – all were deprived of a safeguarding report identifying their risk of suicide (Rule 35(2))
  • 76% were assessed by our clinicians as having symptoms or a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  • Only 51% saw a GP within the required 24 hours of admission to the IRC. Where identified as needing a Rule 35 safeguarding report, the average wait for an appointment was 29 days – one person’s appointment took 119 days
  • Home Office case-workers only released 1 of our 45 vulnerable clients when given information about their vulnerability under safeguarding processes, many of whom included torture survivors

“My health was getting worse in detention. I felt like I couldn’t live anymore, I didn’t know what to do, it was really really terrible … they knew what was happening to me, that I needed help…. There is no help. Ask healthcare, they blame it on the Home Office, and the Home Office will in turn blame healthcare. It feels like you are buried alive.”
Dr D, torture survivor, detained for 4 months despite deterioration in mental health

“Our medical evidence is that extensive Home Office failures mean its safeguarding processes are so ineffective they are basically fictional. Medical Justice fears torture survivors and people who are mentally ill and suicidal could be sent to Rwanda, given the ongoing gross Home Office systemic failures in safeguards for detained people. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Rwanda indicates that slavery and human trafficking survivors will be sent to Rwanda by the UK.

The impact on vulnerable asylum seekers could be devastating. Medical evidence of the harm inflicted would be beyond our reach so we would not be able to collate it in reports like “Harmed Not Heard” which are used to hold the government to account. These vulnerable asylum seekers could be ‘out of sight, out of mind’ in Rwanda with little chance of being heard.”
Medical Justice spokesperson

Evidence heard at public inquiry demonstrates extent of the Home Office’s safeguarding failures

The clinical expert appointed by the Brook House IRC Public Inquiry into mistreatment of detained people, Dr Jake Hard, concluded in March 2022 that there was “a complete systems failure” of safeguards to identify and release vulnerable people in detention. The Head of Healthcare, and the lead GP (still both working at Brook House IRC) gave evidence of systemic deficiencies and that they are continuing. Our report shows these deficiencies are not confined to Brook House and apply across the detention estate.

Victims of slavery and human trafficking, and possibly other vulnerable people, set to be sent to Rwanda

On 14th April 2022 the Home Office announced its MoU outlining how asylum seekers will be sent to Rwanda. It commits to undertaking an “initial screening” of asylum seekers before sending them. The evidence from ‘Harmed Not Heard’, and from all our work since Medical Justice was founded in 2005, demonstrates that the Home Office is incapable of effective screening for vulnerabilities. This seems to be anticipated in the MoU which states the UK will take back and “resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees” in the UK. The MoU indicates that victims of modern slavery and human trafficking will be sent to Rwanda.

Vulnerable asylum seekers set to be held in quasi-detention in a tiny Yorkshire hamlet within weeks

Also announced on 14th April is an ‘Accommodation Centre’ at RAF Linton-on-Ouse which the Home Office plans to open in a matter of weeks, where it will place 1,500 asylum seeking men. Linton-on-Ouse is village, with 500 residents, according to one of them.

The Home Office has said that Napier Barracks, where a few hundred asylum seeking men are placed, is the ‘pilot’ for ‘Accommodation Centres’. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention considers Napier Barracks to be ‘quasi-detention’ and that asylum seekers placed there “have been subjected to appalling treatment and conditions”.

The APPG found that the Home Office had failed to apply it’s own “suitability criteria” which is meant to screen out highly vulnerable asylum seekers. The “suitability criteria” that the Home Office refers to for Linton-on-Ouse may be the same as at Napier, and as dysfunctional. The Home Office Factsheet for Linton-on-Ouse says “There will be robust processes in place to assess and manage vulnerabilities”, so it’s not clear to what extent, if at all, vulnerable asylum seekers are screened out.

Contact : Emma Ginn on 07786 517379 / emma.ginn@medicaljustice.org.uk

Vacancy – Researcher (part-time) for 1 year parental leave cover

Join a dynamic team dedicated to ending the mistreatment of immigration detainees!

Lead Medical Justice research, drawing on our evidence of the harm caused by immigration detention, and contribute to the wider advocacy programme.

Download the Application Pack here >>

 

 

Role: Researcher

Salary:  £33,206 pro-rata

Reports to: Policy, Research & Parliamentary Manager

Working hours:  2 or 3 days a week

Based: Based in the Medical Justice office near Finsbury Park, London, with flexibility to work at home some of the time, subject to duties required and prior agreement.

Length of contract: 1 year. The probation period is 6 months.

Terms: 28 days annual leave per annum plus statutory bank holidays

Closing date: Thursday 19th May 2022

Interviews: Tuesday 24th May 2022 – this will include a written and verbal exercise

Ideal timeframe for starting the job: beginning of June 2022

To apply:  This vacancy has now been filled

Closing Statement in the Brook House Inquiry

The Closing Statement on behalf of Medical Justice was heard yesterday – our points included are below.  Closing statements by other Core Participants were also heard yesterday and continue today.  A link to the live sessions and transcripts is here.

The Chair’s closing statement will be available from the afternoon of Wednesday 6th April.

The closing statements sum up evidence from over 75 witnesses heard by the Inquiry, including formerly detained people, Brook House IRC officers and senior managers, Home Office officials, healthcare staff (doctors and nurses), representatives from HM Inspector of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Board, three experts appointed by the Inquiry (covering clinical, cultural and use of force issues), and charities who advocate for the rights of detained people.

The mistreatment of people in detention and the systemic failures to safeguard the vulnerable was widely recognised during the Brook House Inquiry, including by Home Office officials and the Inquiry’s appointed experts.

One Home Office official, Ian Castle, said “I think, if you spend more than 24 hours in Brook House, you’re going to develop mental health issues.”

 

Points from the Closing Statement on behalf of Medical Justice included:

The fundamental cause of the ill-treatment captured on BBC Panorama

  • The welfare of vulnerable detained people, a high proportion of whom suffer from mental illnesses arising from history of torture and abuse, is routinely treated as an obstacle to removal. Removal is prioritised above all other considerations.
  • This was reinforced by the contractual arrangements which put a premium on price and profit over care and respect for fundamental human rights.
  • Immigration detention is not designed, staffed or resourced to meet the needs of vulnerable detained people – it harms them. Restraints and segregation are used to manage crises which are manifestations of mental health conditions, often exacerbated by the conditions of detention.

The Home Office has ‘designed in’ an inability to learn lessons

  • There is no clear process for feeding back to managers of IRCs, Home Office decision makers, contractors, and healthcare providers when there are serious findings of fault. Shockingly, not even from the most serious court findings of ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’ or from inquest jury findings, where harm was caused by systems defects and neglect had contributed to actual deaths of detained people.
  • One senior Home Office official, Ian Cheeseman, acknowledged these structural deficiencies without emotion, and unapologetically.
  • Several senior Home Office officials had not taken the time to read the material provided to them by the Inquiry prior to giving evidence, or followed the hearings.

 

Condemnation of healthcare

  • The Inquiry’s clinical expert, Dr. Hard, concluded that there was “a complete systems failure” of the safeguards. Where they did operate, they were “dysfunctional.” Sandra Calver, Head of Healthcare, and Dr. Oozeerally, the lead GP (still both working at Brook House IRC) gave evidence that these were systemic deficiencies across the detention estate and that they are continuing.
  • What is also “100% unacceptable” according to Dr. Hard was the complicity that doctors and nurses still in post at Brook House IRC played in approving (and at times sanctioning) the use of force, restraints and segregation. This was contrary to their ethical duties.
  • Neither witness from the company currently contracted to provide healthcare at Brook House IRC, were willing to commit to remedying this situation, describing it as a problem across all immigration removal centres that depended on the Home Office to take the lead and make resources available.

 

Use of force / Control and Restraint (C&R)

  • Mr. Collier, the Inquiry’s expert on Use of Force, was “massively” concerned not only by the use of pain-inducing measures that were banned for being dangerous, but also by the cavalier confidence in those responsible that they will not be found out.
  • Too many staff may profess they “love doing C&R” (testimony of Owen Syred) and vulnerable detainees were in the hands of uncaring, disbelieving staff “whose default position was to make their life difficult” (testimony of Owen Syred) and other employees who enabled such mistreatment by their inaction

 

Abusive, corrupted culture that dehumanises people in detention

  • An environment desensitised to the suffering of detainees allowed an abusive culture to thrive and become normal including highly derogatory, racist language and attitudes. This was not just a sub-culture among ‘core groups’ of custody officers; it was the dominant culture, able to inculcate new staff members, engendered through intimidation, bullying and fear, and it normalised complicity and the silence of others (highlighted by the evidence of Owen Syred a Detention Custody Officer).
  • The casual recurring use of the phrase by custodial staff when dealing with detained persons: “If he dies, he dies” was telling. The officers’ attempt at an explanation – that it was a quote from a movie – reflects how callous, brutal and violent the indifference was toward detained persons, and their failure to recognise this.
  • Virtually all G4S officers who gave evidence attributed their use of derogatory and abusive language to everyday ‘banter’ behind closed doors, and as a way to ‘fit in’.  One officer, Daniel Lake, said “think of it as a sheep in a herd. You know, I’m just following suit what everyone else did, just using the terminology that was used”. These attitudes and practices became embedded within the culture with alarming ease, creating a context of impunity and providing the conditions for racism, violence and abuse to thrive.
  • Dehumanising attitudes included a commonplace disbelief around detained people self-harming which was characterised as attention-seeking, manipulative behaviour calculated to avoid removal, and requiring a coercive response, rather than a trigger for review of detention, consideration of the vulnerability of the individual and the possibility of release: “if you are self harming you’re an attention seeking little prick”.
  • The head of healthcare, conceded that the language used by nursing staff was inappropriate, dehumanising and degrading but maintained that derogatory comments about detained people by clinical staff may be permissible if made “in a safe space” between officers as a way to let off steam.
  • There was a complete absence of any effective oversight or leadership from senior managers at G4S who had known since at least 2014 that there was a bullying culture among the staff from various witnesses, but took no action taken. This encouraged impunity and gave further protection to the dominant toxic culture and sanctioned it by their inaction, silence or indifference.
  • It is apparent from all of the many sources of evidence received by the Inquiry that the toxic and morally corrupted culture was pervasive. There was a complete deprivation of systemic safeguards, both inherent in the design of policy and in its operation across the whole centre.
  • Racism – the worst kind of dehumanisation – thrived. It served as both the precipitant and the justification for unchecked mistreatment and abuse, and reckless indifference to the mental suffering, humiliation and anguish of the detained population as a whole and individually.
  • The absence of regulation and constraint on staff allowed this culture to thrive and permitted overt acts of physical and verbal violence and mistreatment, seen on Panorama, to take place with impunity and without regard to the physical and mental harm that the detained people suffered, and even at times, to whether they lived or died.

 

A “perfect storm” of conditions for abuse and ill-treatment to occur and reoccur

  • Medical Justice’s Dr. Bingham described the combination of conditions at Brook House as  “perfect storm” for abuse and ill-treatment of vulnerable people to occur and reoccur. The Inquiry’s clinical expert, Dr. Hard, agreed.
  • The Inquiry painted a vivid picture of an extremely harmful machine out of anyone’s control with enough moving parts for each person involved to effectively point to someone else as being responsible.  This is exacerbated by multiple layers of outsourcing.
  • All the evidence points to the inevitable conclusion that Brook House IRC was an inhumane and degrading environment in 2017 which was not identified by the Home Office, by those who run Brook House IRC or by the official bodies who monitor it – only by uncover reporting.
  • The Inquiry’s chair, Kate Eves, expressed concern for 5 people currently detained at Brook House IRC who are on suicide watch.

 

This is the only public inquiry there has ever been into immigration detention

  • All the many previous reviews and investigations into immigration detention did not result in significant, lasting change.  This Public Inquiry has had the ability to compel the participation of all those (except Ministers) who have played a part in the establishment and running of an IRC and for them to be cross-examined, with input from expert Core Participants, including Medical Justice and formally detained people. This has enabled investigation into all the inter-related elements of a complex machine, from all angles, exposing the true extent of systemic failures and mistreatment.
  • The Inquiry has been a unique opportunity for the public to understand the harm caused by detention and for those who have been abused, who have bravely given evidence, to confront the faceless men and women in suits responsible; not just those in uniforms.

 

 

 

Oral evidence can be watched from Dr Rachel Bingham (Medical Justice Clinical Advisor) starts at 25 mins and Theresa Schleicher (Medical Justice Casework Manager) starts at 1 hour 57 mins.

Human Rights Acts Consultation Submission

The government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights. The suggested reforms will create new obstacles in human rights claims, such as requiring claimants to prove suffering a ‘significant disadvantage’ and having ‘good behaviour’. It restricts the application of human rights in deportation cases, and changes how rights are balanced against each other. The framing is problematic, for example the reforms suggest a need to ‘make sure deportations that are in the public interest are not frustrated by human rights claims’ to ‘more effectively address…the impediments arising from the Convention and the Human Rights Act to tackling the challenges posed by illegal and irregular migration’. Our submissions rejected their proposals and looked at the impact that they would have on our work/clients.

Read our submission here

Detained and Discarded Report Released

New research published today by Medical Justice shows that Home Office failings have led to the unsafe release of extremely vulnerable and unwell people into the community, without adequate support.

One woman whose delay in treatment “could potentially have life or limb threatening consequences”, struggled to re-arrange an orthopaedic oncology appointment that she missed because she had been detained.  One released Medical Justice client described how he ended up a number of times in Accident & Emergency, having been unable to secure a recommended cardiology appointment.

Some released from immigration detention had pre-existing vulnerabilities and medical conditions exacerbated by their time in detention, whilst others had attempted suicide, self-harmed or suicidal thoughts in detention.

Read the report here >> 

 

“These unsafe practices lead to greater unmet health needs, and to more serious health consequences, requiring more and longer treatments once people are able to access care. In the year reported on, over seventeen thousand people were released, despite the stated purpose of their detention being to remove them, indicating the senselessness of exposing people to these negative health consequences”

Dr Rachel Bingham, Clinical Advisor at Medical Justice

 

“I was getting prepped for major surgery when I was detained for 6 months. The healthcare at the Immigration Removal Centre was appalling. They failed to manage my condition and in the end had no choice but to release me. Although my health had deteriorated rapidly and the surgery was more urgent than ever, I was discharged without so much as a referral or medication. It was as if the centre was more concerned about washing their hands of me so they would not be held liable than they were about my aftercare. It was an awful experience and the whole time I was afraid for my health, and very, very anxious and emotionally distressed. I felt like nobody cared if I lived or died. It is unacceptable and inhuman in a first world country to treat people like this and it has to stop. Thankfully for me, my GP was very supportive and referred me back to the surgical team – I eventually had the surgery 7 months later.”

Ms A

 

Thousands of people are released from detention into the community every year. Between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2021, 81% of the 21,362 people detained were released back into the community [1]. 2,239 were considered to be ‘Adults at Risk’ whilst in detention by the Home Office [2], however Medical Justice believes there to be far more vulnerable people in detention due to the systematic failures of the Adults at Risk policy to identify vulnerable people. With thousands released into the community every year, the impact of releasing those individuals in a medically unsafe release cannot be overstated.

The report Detained and Discarded: Vulnerable people released from immigration detention in medically unsafe way found that release from detention is often unplanned, chaotic and medically unsafe.

 

Medical Justice sees repeated cases of vulnerable people released into the community without adequate care plans, with little or no information and support about entitlement and how to access a GP, and rarely with referrals to community support services such as local mental health teams. This has included people who had very recently attempted suicide in detention.

One client said: “When I was told I was being released, no clinician or nurse gave me advice, my medication or any help with healthcare outside.”

Mohamed [3], who was prescribed medication due to severe stomach pain and vomiting, was not provided with an adequate supply of his prescribed medication upon release and was not given his full medical records. As he did not have information or support about seeing a doctor in the community, he explained: “I experienced a long wait to see a doctor, meanwhile I was suffering during that time and I had no attention from anyone”.

Many experienced several of these issues at the same time, with a domino effect of one barrier leading to another. Additional difficulties were experienced with navigating the healthcare system in the community, as a result of their unstable immigration status and language barriers.

Abbas [4], who suffers from physical health issues, including with his heart, and from depression and PTSD, struggled to see a cardiologist upon release. Despite having been recommended to see a cardiologist whilst in detention and by an A&E doctor in London after being released, it took over a year and a half for him to see a cardiologist. Abbas described multiple barriers he faced. For example, after being dispersed to outside of London, he explained: “Because of the language barrier and I had difficulty to go to London, I couldn’t go to the appointment.”

 

The report raises concerns about the Home Office’s application of its own policies on the safe release of vulnerable detainees as the unsafe release of people from detention persists.

Information obtained through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests suggests that the experiences of Medical Justice clients may be illustrative of a wider problem in the immigration detainee population. Shockingly, the Home Office revealed that only three people recorded as ‘Adult at risk’ had onward care plans arranged upon their release across three IRCs between January 2019 and June 2021.

The Home Office has further confirmed, in response to another FOI request, that it does not have any guidance or template letters for Home Office staff in IRCs to “advise individuals with health problems or those at risk of self-harm and/or suicide” at the point of release how to access health services in the community.

Immigration detention causes severe harm to those held there and can cause rapid deterioration over time. This is particularly true for those who have a history of mental health issues or a history of trauma. The Home Office failed to deliver on their responsibilities in accordance with their duty of care towards vulnerable individuals leaving detention and continues to toy with the lives of vulnerable people by releasing them in such an unsafe and dangerous way.

[1] For statistics for September 2020 to September 2021, see Home Office National Statistics. 2021. Immigration Statistics, year ending September 2021. [Last accessed on 18 January 2022] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/…. and Home Office Detention Summary Tables. 2021. Immigration Statistics, year ending September 2021. [last accessed on 18 January 2022] Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads... Does not include those who were returned or those classed as ‘other’ which includes people who have returned to criminal detention, those released unconditionally, those sectioned under the Mental Health Act, deaths and absconds. It also does not include those held in Pre Departure Accommodation (PDA). See Home Office Detention Summary Tables. Immigration Statistics, year ending September 2021.

[2] Data extracted from statistics provided in Home Office response to FOIA 68200 received 22 February 2022. The number of Adults at Risk in PDA and those identified under column ‘other’ is not included. See Annex 1 for Home Office responses to Freedom of Information Access Requests.

[3] Mohamed’s name has been changed to protect his identity.

[4] Abbas’ name has been changed to protect his identity.

 

 

 

Basic Training Day For Clinicians

 

Our Basic Training Day is for doctors and psychologists who are interested in volunteering for Medical Justice as medico-legal report writers, visiting detainees in detention centres or conducting remote assessments, assessing their health and documenting clinical evidence of torture and other health issues.

The aim of this course is to gain an understanding of the health and legal needs of asylum seekers and other immigration detainees. The skills learnt will focus on assessing persons detained under immigration powers, as well as medico-legal report writing

The training covers the relevant legal processes, assessing scarring and mental health and report writing skills. Participants will be doctors and clinical psychologists with relevant experience. For doctors we require five years post-qualification training (i.e. GP or ST4 and above, or equivalent clinical experience).

This training day will be taking place in person at Doughty Street Chambers, in central London

 

 

Medical Justice is a small charity that sends volunteer clinicians into the UK’s 7 IRCs to visit men and women detained arbitrarily and indefinitely. We assist about 1,000 detainees a year, most of whom are asylum seekers, and most are later released. Our volunteer doctors write medico-legal reports (MLRs) documenting the scars and mental health consequences of torture, identify unmet health needs and challenge instances of inadequate healthcare provision. We are the only charitable organisation in the UK that does this. Our training is therefore unique and provided by experienced doctors in the field.

 

 

Participation fees

On request, fees are reimbursed after the doctor has written an MLR for a Medical Justice referral

 £120 – Consultant/GP

£80 – Trainee doctors (ST4 onwards) and psychologists

Free – Medical Justice volunteer (carried out one detention visit in last 12 months)

Note: please tell us if you would have difficulties paying a fee – we can help.

 

Payment

 Once issued an invoice for the participation fee you can pay by electronic transfer to us at:

CAF Bank

Sort-code: 40-52-40

Account Number: 0002 1167

 

Registration Information Needed

Please email Anthony at a.omar@medicaljustice.org.uk with the following information to register and book your place:

 

Name

CV

Current employment (post and employer)

Address

Mobile no.

Email address

Induction Training Day For Interpreters

Our Induction Training Day is for new volunteer interpreters who are joining Medical Justice. By joining Medical Justice as a volunteer interpreter, you can have a positive impact on the lives and health of a vulnerable group of people in the UK. Our interpreters help people in detention seek support and advice despite the language barriers and provide crucial interpretation for medical assessments with our volunteer clinicians.

Volunteers can make a difference by donating time remotely by phone/video or by attending immigration detention centres in person to provide skilled and accurate interpretation. You can volunteer your time flexibly and taken on interpreting at the times that are most suited to you.

The training contains sessions on working with medical professionals as well as an introduction to immigration detention, visiting an IRC and interpreting in a mental health context. We also have ongoing opportunities for feedback and support for volunteers.

This training day will be taking place in person at Doughty Street Chambers, in central London.

 

 

 

How to join

If you are interested in joining our interpreter team, please contact Lisa at interpreting@medicaljustice.org.uk for an application form.

 

 

Medical Justice is a small charity that sends volunteer doctors (and other health professionals) into the UK’s 7 IRCs to visit men and women detained arbitrarily and indefinitely. We assist about 1,000 detainees a year, most of whom are asylum seekers, and most are later released. Our volunteer doctors write medico-legal reports (MLRs) documenting scars of torture and challenge instances of inadequate healthcare provision, including denial of medication and access to hospital. We are the only charitable organisation in the UK that does this.

 

MoJ White Paper

Medical Justice sent a joint submission with Bail for Immigration Detainees to the Ministry of Justice’s Prisons Strategy White Paper. Our comments focused on concerns around the normalisation of a more restrictive regime in prisons, drawing on our joint report “Every day is like torture”: Solitary Confinement & Immigration Detention.

The White Paper suggests that more autonomy will be given to prison governors to set prison regimes. Although it is not explicitly stated in this White Paper, we understand that the Prison Governors’ Association, as well as the Prison Officers’ Association (POA), and Ministers, attribute the fall in violence during the pandemic to the stricter lockup regimes in prisons enforced by Covid. We referenced this and highlighted the harm that solitary confinement has caused to our clients in prisons.

Read our submission here