Skip to content

Author: anthony

Job Vacancy: Clinical Advisor

We have an exciting opportunity to join the Medical Justice team as a Clinical Advisor.

 

Job Title: Clinical Advisor

Salary: £10,596.20 per annum per day (for 2 days a week; £52,981.01per annum prorata).

Reports to: Casework Manager

Working hours: 2 days a week depending on the candidate’s availability. Flexible working arrangements are possible. The post holder will be expected to be flexible and respond to occasional out of hours emergency needs.

Based: At our Office in Finsbury Park, London, and remotely from home. There is also a requirement to attend Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) to carry out visits to detainees.

Length of contract: 1 year – renewable subject to funding

Terms: Pro rata 24 days per annum holiday, plus statutory bank holidays And up to 4 days associated with Medical Justice’s Christmas/New Year closure

Timeline: Application deadline – Thursday 20th January 2022.

 

If you are interested and would like to apply please read the Job Description and complete the application form. Email your completed application form and your CV to Anthony at a.omar@medicaljustice.org.uk

APPG on Immigration Detention Inquiry into Quasi-Detention

Full Report Published Today

The All-Party Parliamentary group (APPG) on Immigration Detention has today published a report following its inquiry into quasi-detention, calling on the government to end its use of Napier Barracks to accommodate people seeking asylum and to scrap its plans for 9 ‘accommodation centres’ for 8,000 people seeking asylum seekers based on the barracks as a ‘pilot’. Please see the below APPG press release.

Meanwhile, the High Court has now granted permission for a judicial review to proceed to a full hearing challenging the Home Office’s decision, without consultation, to continue using Napier Barracks as asylum accommodation for a further five years.

 

 


 

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, 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)

Brook House Public Inquiry

Public hearings start 10am Tuesday 23rd November 2021

Hearings begin investigating dehumanising abuse of people held in immigration detention

Livestream the hearing on the Inquiry’s YouTube channel >>

The Brook House Public Inquiry was set up to investigate disturbing images of people detained indefinitely at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) being mistreated by G4S guards, secretly filmed by the BBC in 2017  The BBC footage depicts high levels of self-harm and abuse that appeared widespread and normalised, ranging from casual and degrading, to extremely violent and life-threatening.

 


BBC Panorama – “Undercover: Britain’s Immigration Secrets”


 

Those whose evidence will be heard include our former detained clients regarding their experience of degrading racist, physical and verbal abuse at the hands of G4S staff, as well as those G4S staff and Home Office officials responsible for immigration detention. Issues of corporate and state accountability will be investigated, including the extent to which the Home Office, G4S and others are responsible for what has gone on.

This is the first ever public inquiry into immigration detention in the UK – the first time those responsible for immigration detention at the Home Office have been compelled to hand over evidence, or be witnesses about the incidents under investigation. Unsurprisingly, the Home Office fought against a public inquiry. To secure the Inquiry, formerly detained individuals who were abused had to go to court to force the Home Office, responsible for the abuse, to be accountable.

The Inquiry will reach conclusions with regard to the treatment of people detained where there is credible evidence of inhuman or degrading treatment, or punishment. The Inquiry’s investigations will include whether any clinical care issues caused or contributed to any identified mistreatment.

 


 

“Ongoing mistreatment of those detained at Brook House and other IRCs is evident in our casework every day.  Many of our clients are extremely vulnerable. Torture survivors can be retraumatised by detention.  This can be compounded when they are subjected to ‘control & restraint’ by guards, which is sometimes used even in response to self-harming, agitation and distress. This can be experienced as a terrifying re-enactment of past abuse. Medical Justice clinicians document fresh injuries sustained as a result of the use of force; as well as the psychological impact, which can be lasting.

Our clinicians continue to see catastrophic and systemic failures at Brook House IRC. The wholly inadequate treatment of highly vulnerable people, coupled with an alarming rate of self-harm and suicidality at Brook House IRC right now, means the place is unsafe and should be closed immediately. “

Emma Ginn – Director, Medical Justice

 


 

Medical Justice is a small charity that sends volunteer clinicians to assess people held in IRCs across the UK, documenting their scars of torture, serious medical conditions, injuries inflicted by guards, deterioration of health in detention, and instances of medical mistreatment. We assist between 600 and 1,000 people in detention each year. Ever since Medical Justice was established in 2005, we have been providing a constant stream of evidence – week in and week out – of inappropriate detention of vulnerable clients’ and medical mistreatment.

Our evidence is to be heard in the second half of the Inquiry. Medical Justice has intimate knowledge of the failings of Brook House as we spoke to 110 people held there in the Inquiry’s timeframe. Our evidence will comprise a mixture of at least 44 case studies from that time as well as our work with current clients. Medical Justice’s experience is that the failings in 2017 continue to this day.

 


 

Available for interview: A former Medical Justice client who was detained at Brook House IRC and a Medical Justice clinician.

Contactemma.ginn@medicaljustice.org.uk / 07786 517379

Note: Medical Justice is represented by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors who are instructing Shu Shin Luh of Doughty Street Chambers and Stephanie Harrison QC and Laura Profumo of Garden Court Chambers.

About the Inquiry:

  1. The hearings will commence at 10am on 23 November 2021 and will be held at the Inquiry’s premises within the International Dispute Resolution Centre, 1 Paternoster Lane, London, EC4M 7BQ.
  2. Hearings can be attended in person. If you wish to attend, please register by emailing enquiries@brookhouseinquiry.org.uk
  3. Hearings can also be viewed via the livestream on the Inquiry’s YouTube channel and a transcript will be uploaded to the Inquiry website following each day’s hearings.
  4. Details of upcoming and previous hearings will be available through the Inquiry’s website.
  5. Updates on proceedings will also be given via the Inquiry’s social media channels and website. Follow @BrookInquiry on Twitter or check the news section of the website https://brookhouseinquiry.org.uk/news/

Vacancy: Caseworker / Trainee Caseworker

Would you like to work as a Caseworker for Medical Justice assisting immigration detainees?

Come and work with Medical Justice, a small and dynamic team that builds on casework to produce research that is used to challenge systemic failures in healthcare provision in immigration detention. We expose medical mistreatment in detention and strive for lasting change for all detainees through policy work, strategic litigation, media coverage and parliamentary action.

“It has been inspiring working with such amazing people both inside and outside of detention. The role gives so much scope for building meaningful relationships with those we work with and I always felt that casework was being fed into wider strategies to end the injustice of detention.“

Sam, a former Medical Justice caseworker

 


 

Job Purpose: Ensure Medical Justice assists as many detainees as it can and as well as it can to access adequate healthcare and obtain high-quality independent medical evidence to progress their legal case.

Salary: Depending on experience – £24,837 (Trainee Caseworker) to £27,378 (Caseworker) with an annual increase of £500 for 5 years.

Trainee position: This is not linked to a formal training programme. It will normally be expected that the Caseworker Trainee will progress to Caseworker after 2 years – the salary and level of responsibility will increase, whilst the level of supervision will decrease.

Reports to: Casework Manager

Working hours: Full-time

Based: Medical Justice office with some flexibility for working from home after an initial period

Length of contract: 2 years, with renewal if funding available

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

Timeline: Application deadline – Thursday 21st October 2021. Interviews will be held on Tuesday 26th and Friday 29th October 2021.  Ideal start date – as soon as possible.

To apply: Please read the Job Description and complete the application form. Email your competed application form and your CV to Anthony at a.omar@medicaljustice.org.uk

Basic Training Day for Clinicians

We are very pleased to announce details of our next Basic Training Day which will take place online on Saturday the 9th of October. The training day will start from 10am and end at 3.10pm.

The day will take place online via Zoom so that we can deliver our in-depth and comprehensive training in the safest way possible. The training day is supported by self-study modules in the assessment of mental health and scarring which we recommend those new to this field complete in advance of the day (approx 4 hours).

Our training is for medics who are interested in volunteering for Medical Justice as medico-legal report writers, visiting detainees in detention centres, assessing their health and documenting evidence of torture or trauma 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 have a basic understanding and experience of the needs of immigration detainees and/or care of asylum seekers in the community and will be doctors (5 years post qualification training; ie. GP or ST4 and above, or equivalent clinical experience), psychiatrists and psychologists.

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. 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

 

£80 – Consultant/GP

£60 – 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

Medical Justice Network Limited
CAF Bank
Sort-code: 40-52-40
Account Number: 0002 1167

 

Registration Information Needed

Please email info@medicaljustice.org.uk with the following information to apply for a place::

 

Name

Current employment (post and employer)

CV

Address

Mobile no.

Email address

 

If you have any questions about the training do not hesitate to contact us.

“Every day is like torture”

Solitary confinement & Immigration detention

New research published today by Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) and Medical Justice documents the devastating impact upon immigration detainees in prisons of conditions amounting to indefinite solitary confinement.

People held for immigration reasons (including torture survivors and those with serious vulnerabilities) are locked in their cells for over 22 hours a day, most often 23.5, with people sometimes being held in their cells for days at a time and unable to take a shower. Some are self-harming, attempting suicide and unable to sleep or eat. They report existing in a state of endless despair. Physical symptoms include involuntary shaking, memory loss and physical pain. As one man told us:

“I didn’t enter prison with mental health problems but I’m not the same person I was. My mind is not the same. I’m not sure if what has happened to be can be repaired.”

Another said:

“It just feels illegal because of what it’s doing to my mind and body. If this isn’t breaching my rights, then what will? It’s as though I’ve fallen into a crack that the Home Office opened and I can’t get out.”

The research released today is based on interviews with 5 immigration detainees and on medico-legal reports produced by doctors, as well as reviews of case files that argue for the release of people held in prolonged confinement – either solitarily or with a cell-mate.

 


Read the report here


 

Key findings:

Five disturbing statements describe people being pushed to the limit of what a human being can be expected to endure. Two people described the experience as torture. Their statements are distressing to read but they have been included in this report.

The medico-legal reports illustrate severe impact on health including the exacerbation of pre-existing mental health conditions and the onset of new conditions. The severe harm caused is reflected in the literature on the impact of solitary confinement on health. It can cause long-term and even irreversible harm and may increase the risk of suicide. Prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited by the United Nations and can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

The report also finds that in individual cases and in official correspondence the Home Office has failed to engage with the issue of prolonged solitary confinement in prisons.  It appears that severely restrictive prison conditions are not being considered when assessing the proportionality of immigration detention.


Detention in prisons

Immigration detention is an administrative rather than criminal or punitive process, and people can be detained in prisons or detention centres. There are currently 577 immigration detainees held in UK prisons. People who may have strong ties to the UK such as those who grew up here or who themselves have children here, are held under immigration powers after having completed a custodial sentence, with no release date, facing possible deportation. They may be required to take proactive steps to challenge their detention, which is almost impossible for those locked in a cell 23 hours per day. Many have pre-existing mental health conditions, making the use of prolonged confinement particularly dangerous. Meanwhile the purpose for which they are being detained – removal from the UK – may be little more than a remote possibility.


Quotes

Bail for Immigration Detainees director Annie Viswanathan said:

“It is impossible not to be horrified at what is being done to people in the name of immigration control or to imagine the profound frustration and distress that people experience when trapped in a cage for most if not all of the day, not knowing when it will end.  That it leaves people with enduring mental and physical health problems is hardly surprising and exactly why it has been banned under the UN’s ‘Mandela Rules’. 

I hope this report causes the people with the power to take stock and reflect on the continuing use of a  barbaric practice that shames our society. This cruelty needs to end and people should be released so that they can be supported in the community.”

 

Medical Justice director Emma Ginn said:

“It is profoundly disturbing that immigration detainees are being locked up indefinitely, many in solitary confinement, despite clear evidence from Medical Justice clinicians of the predictable, devastating effect.

That this imprisonment extends beyond a criminal sentence means severe harm is being inflicted during, and because of, a period of entirely unnecessary and purely administrative detention – we need to question if this is civilised or in fact gratuitous.  It is certainly the biggest scandal most people have never heard of.

This inhuman practice is a reflection on our society. Let this not be who we are.”

 

Dr Josanne Holloway, Chair of the Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:

“This important research highlights the detrimental impact of immigration detention on health and wellbeing, including an increased risk of mental illness and suicide.

“Detention in prison is clearly not right for these vulnerable people and solitary confinement is psychologically harmful and shouldn’t be used.

“Asylum seekers experiencing mental illness should not be detained. Instead, they should receive the mental health support they need, either in the community or in an inpatient setting.”


Contacts:

Annie Viswanathan, Director, BID annie@biduk.org, 02074569751

Emma Ginn, Director, Medical Justice emma.ginn@medicaljustice.org, 07786 517379

APPG Inquiry into quasi-detention

Watch the first oral evidence session

 

Last week on 1st July 2021 the All Party-Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Immigration Detention held the first oral evidence session of its inquiry into the use of “quasi-detention” sites to house asylum seekers, such as Napier Barracks which replicates many of the features found in immigration detention settings.

Read the Evening Standard article about the evidence session here.

“people were attempting suicide through cutting themselves and trying to hang themselves. So they went to hospital. But even some of them were then sent back to the camp and not moved out.”

– Sue Willman, Deighton Pierce Glynn

 


Part One: Legal Issues

Witnesses:

Clare Jennings – Director and Head of Public Law and Community Care, Mathew Gold & Co. Solicitors

Sonia Lenegan – Legal Director, Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association

Shu Shin Luh – Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers

Sue Willman – Solicitor / Consultant, Deighton Pierce Glynn

 

Part Two: Health Issues

Witnesses:

Dr Yusuf Cifti – Policy and Advocacy Manager, Doctors of the World

Dr Juliet Cohen – Head of Doctors, Freedom from Torture

Dr Jill O’Leary – GP / Head of Medical Advisory Service, Helen Bamber Foundation

Dr Piyal Sen – Member, Working Group on the Mental Health of Asylum Seekers and Refugees, Royal College of Psychiatrists

 


The inquiry panel members are:

Alison Thewliss MP (SNP) – APPG chair (right)
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)

Some extracts from the evidence session last week:

“The decision to process asylum claims in the barracks with no safeguards to ensure proper access to legal advice, then you’re layering on top of an already unlawful, inadequate arrangements, a further risk of further inadequacy. And so the only inference you could really draw from the state of play at the moment is that the Home Secretary simply doesn’t know whether or not the use of the barracks is lawful and can be used lawfully.”

Shu Shin Luh – Barrister, Doughty Street Chambers

 

“It has appeared to me that the Home Office had been using the judicial review process and lawyers as almost a way of identifying who shouldn’t be in the barracks” ….. “one of my clients was texting us late at night expressing suicidal thoughts and that if we didn’t get him out of there he couldn’t go on.“ Regarding asylum seekers transferred from Napier barracks to Tinsley House Immigration Removal Centre for ‘bail accommodation’ …“They felt like they were in prison because that’s exactly exactly where they were. … If a person who approaches the local authority is homeless and out of a homelessness duty, you wouldn’t put them in a prison because it happened to be some spare beds there”

Clare Jennings – Mathew Gold & Co. Solicitors

 

In relation to the New Plan for Immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill introduced this week … “These plans will include proposals for reception centres to provide basic accommodation while processing the claims of asylum seekers. What is happening in Napier at the moment fits that description … what we seem to have in Napier is a reception centre without any procedural safeguards. A key one would be to ensure that people have access to a lawyer at a sufficiently early stage”

Sonia Lenegan – Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association

 

“74% of the people we’ve spoken to said that they have a bad or very bad health in general and 70% are diagnosed with psychological conditions” … “we spoke to a man who had begun to experience severe stomach pain, but there was no action for 24 hours by the by the staff members on the site. And after 24 hours, an ambulance was called and the man was taken to a hospital and diagnosed with a medical condition which, if untreated, could easily lead to life threatening medical complications. The man was offered surgery, but he refused to take the surgery because he thought that he wouldn’t take care of himself in the recovery stage when he was sent to the barracks”

Dr Yusuf Cifti – Policy and Advocacy Manager, Doctors of the World

 

“If somebody has to pass the barrier of the nurse in the camp who they see as a state employee, an agent of the state, and the very nature of torture is that it destroys your trust in the state.”

Dr Juliet Cohen – Freedom from Torture

 

“All of them at Napier reported having felt depressed since they arrived there and a third of them said they had felt suicidal” … “the screening processes are not fit for purpose. … we’re not aware of any form of safeguarding provision for mental health”

Dr Jill O’Leary – Helen Bamber Foundation

 

“There’s virtually no screening program for identifying mental health vulnerabilities for this group” … “You don’t even have primary mental healthcare” … “healthcare is bordering on nonexistent”

Dr Piyal Sen – Member, Working Group on the Mental Health of Asylum Seekers and Refugees, Royal College of Psychiatrists

 

Described “unbelievably inhumane conditions” and an “unacceptable and shameful situation for this group of vulnerable human beings”

Mary Foy MP

 

“It is very concerning that the UK Government has described asylum seekers being accommodated at the barracks as “not analogous to British Citizens” and that “less generous” support is therefore available to them. We have seen how this has translated into real harm suffered by real people who are vulnerable and have sought safety in this country.
There is a widely held belief that the barracks are being used as a model on which to base the ‘asylum reception centres’ outlined in the UK Government’s recently published New Plan for Immigration. The APPG’s inquiry comes at a crucial time, and I believe its findings will speak to the fairer and more just society that many of us want to be.”

Alison Thewliss MP – Chair of the APPG

 

 

MPs have #30DaysToAct for detained trafficking victims

Stealth legislation grants new powers to detain victims “on even wider scale”

 

Under new policy, passed without debate, people recognised by the Home Office as ‘potential trafficking victims’ will still be liable for detention as a result of their immigration status

Home Office acknowledges increase in detained trafficking victims “may be an effect” of new policy passed through Parliament without scrutiny

Parliament’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) label the ‘consultation’ “poor practice”, raising concerns around process

Home Office has told the SLSC that legal entitlements to support for potential victims will be delivered from within detention rather than the community

MPs have only 30 days to object (via a ‘fatal’ Early Day Motion), due to be tabled tonight, and secure a debate on this issue, otherwise policy comes into force on 25 May 2021

Act: Tweet your MP / Email your MP

Read the the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, with evidence provided by NGOs led by Medical Justice’s Elspeth Macdonald and Theresa Schleicher

View a Briefing for MPs on the subject complied by the group of NGOs

 

Under sweeping changes, even those with a legal entitlement to trafficking support will have to provide additional ‘evidence’ of vulnerability to be considered for release from detention.

 

NGOs have condemned the changes, which will see safeguards further eroded for victims of trafficking wrongfully detained due to their immigration status. Since 2019 alone, 2,914 potential victims of trafficking who should have had access to safe housing, counselling, and medical intervention were locked behind bars due to their immigration status.[1]

Now, changes in detention guidance will bring potential trafficking victims under a more ‘general’ policy for vulnerable people in detention, known as the ‘Adults at Risk’ (AAR policy). These changes will downgrade the value of trafficking status within detention decision making, and introduce a higher evidence threshold for victims to access support.[2] As a result, more survivors “may be detained, and for longer” according to a submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.[3]

Submitting concerns to the committee, non profits After ExploitationAnti Slavery InternationalBail for Immigration DetaineesFocus on Labour ExploitationFreedom From Torture, Medical Justice and The Helen Bamber Foundation explain:

“The very fact that a Potential Victim of Trafficking (PVoT) has been trafficked often leads to them having a negative immigration history.

For example, being under the control of a trafficker may result in the person entering the country unlawfully, being unable to claim asylum as soon as they arrive, or being unable to travel in order to report.

Secondly, in order to benefit from a stronger protection against detention (i.e. that afforded at Level 3), once brought under the [more general] Adults at Risk (AAR) Guidance, PVoTs with a positive Reasonable Grounds decision [Potential Victim of Trafficking status issued by the Home Office] will now need to provide additional professional evidence demonstrating not only that they are an adult at risk, but that detention is likely to cause them harm.

Therefore, compared to the current arrangements, the amended AAR Guidance will make it significantly more difficult for PVoTs to avoid or secure release from detention.”

In relation to the risk of more victims being detained for longer, the SLSC confirms that “the Home Office response indicates that this may be an effect for some individuals”. Within the submission, Home Office evidence recognises that potential victims are entitled to certain rights such as those “under Articles 12 and 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (ECAT)”. However, the Government submission argues that these rights “will continue” to be delivered within detention rather than in the community.

The changes have been made via a negative ‘Statutory Instrument’ (SI), which allows Government to make changes to guidance, under the banner of an existing Act of Parliament.[4] A ‘negative SI’ is not subject to Parliamentary debate or scrutiny, and the only way to annul this is through a ‘fatal’ Early Day Motion (EDM), which is being tabled tonight by John McDonnell MP. Specialist NGOs are encouraging MPs to sign the motion, as there are only #30DaysToAct for survivors of modern slavery.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) called the Home Office’s consultation on the changes “poor practice” with limited NGOs involved, many of whom had only two weeks to respond. No survivor groups were included in the consultation.

John McDonnell MP, tabling the Early Day Motion (EDM) to annul Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/184), said:

“This law change is completely counter-productive and will deter victims from coming forward. The Government needs to think again.”

“This change in the law flies in the face of the Government’s stated aims of protecting the victims of trafficking. Contrary to what ministers have claimed about recognising the vulnerability of victims of trafficking, it [the changes] mean that someone trafficked will be at heightened risk of detention.”

After Exploitation’s Director, Maya Esslemont, said:

“Modern slavery is a deeply traumatising form of exploitation, which almost without exception features severe sexual, physical and emotional abuse. It is unthinkable that such serious changes to the treatment of survivors, already made vulnerable by abuse, have been introduced without any real consultation or Parliamentary debate. This policy will condemn more survivors to time behind bars, even when the Home Office recognises they have a legal right to support.”

“It is vital that MPs work at pace to challenge this stealth legislation. This significant change introduces a clear risk to some of the most vulnerable in our society.”

Anti Slavery International’s Researcher and Co-ordinator, Anna Sereni, said:

“Detention centres consistently fail to protect vulnerable people. By increasing the detention of slavery survivors, the government is taking a backward step on its world leading commitment to protect and support survivors of slavery

Survivors of slavery often have complex physical and mental health needs and require unique support to be able to disclose their experiences. The identification of trafficked persons in detention is often poor because people are unable to disclose their experiences in the prison-like settings of detention.

The Government should consider why historically it took the decision not to detain slavery survivors, knowing this would be viewed as a penalty and breach international law.

Despite acknowledging that under these proposals, survivors of slavery will be detained for longer periods, they appear destined to punish slavery survivors because of their commitment to hostile immigration policies.”

Bail For Immigration Detainees (BID)’s Research Co-ordinator, Rudy Schulkind, said:

“Through our front-line work, we meet survivors of human trafficking who should have been provided with support and protection but were instead locked up by the Home Office in prison-like settings with few legal protections or a release date. Unsurprisingly, the impact on victims’ long-term mental health and physical wellbeing is disastrous.

Identification of survivors of trafficking in detention is already poor, as detention settings can rarely make victims feel safe enough to share traumatic experiences.

Changes being introduced by the government will weaken already poor safeguards, and lead to more survivors of trafficking being detained for longer periods. The government has accepted this may be a consequence of the policy change but is pressing ahead regardless.”

Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX)’s Senior Policy Manager, Rebecca Kingi, said:

“The UK has positive obligations to support survivors of trafficking and prevent exploitation and we should be doing everything we can to design a system that does just that.”

“These changes are a step backwards for the UK as more victims of trafficking will be at risk of being detained or held in detention for longer periods of time and correspondingly, more individuals scared to come forward for help. The changes serve the interests of perpetrators, not survivors and not the UK’s attempts to stop modern slavery.”

“The proposed changes will have a devastating impact on survivors of trafficking who’ll be at greater risk of being detained and for longer periods of time. But they will also affect disclosure of cases of exploitation because survivors, who already fear that after reporting they won’t be believed and will end up in detention, will become even more fearful since the risk of remaining detained will be greater. Rather than safeguarding survivors, these changes will serve the interest of perpetrators who will continue to use the threat of detention and removal to coerce and control victims into exploitative situations.”

Helen Bamber Foundation’s Medical Director, Professor Cornelius Katona said:

“Many victims of human trafficking/modern slavery have been subjected to prolonged, repeated trauma equivalent to that of victims of torture and have severe mental and physical health problems because of their complex trauma. Immigration detention is likely to cause further deterioration and suffering.”

“Safeguards preventing their detention should be strengthened rather than weakened – as this morally repugnant proposed legislative change is trying to do.”

Medical Justice’s Director, Emma Ginn, said:

“We are extremely concerned about these proposed changes to the policies that should protect survivors of trafficking from immigration detention. The Home Office acknowledges that its changes may lead to more survivors of trafficking being detained for longer; this would mean more vulnerable people suffering lasting harm to their mental health, in situations where this is entirely avoidable.”

“Our volunteer clinicians have repeatedly seen and documented the effects of detention on survivors. The locked doors, the sound of officer’s footsteps approaching, the jangling of the keys, the sudden unannounced transfers at night, the sounds of other distressed detainees, the profound lack of any control over one’s circumstances – all can be highly retraumatising for people who have already experienced abuse at the hands of traffickers.”

“We urge the Home Office to reconsider: rather than weakening existing safeguards, there is an urgent need for the government to strengthen protections for survivors and to ensure such measures are properly effective.

Contact

Requests for comment from legal, medical, policy and slavery experts at the above NGOs contact Maya Esslemont: info@afterexploitation.org / 07415374064

About change in guidance

The Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/184) was laid before Parliament on 25 February 2021.

NGOs argue that survivors are already detained in huge numbers, despite exiting guidance stating that there must be a ‘public order’ reason to do so. Under the Statutory Instrument due to be passed through Parliament without debate, survivors referred by the authorities and recognised as ‘potential trafficking victims’ by the Home Office, will not automatically be considered too ‘at risk’ to detain. The new guidance will expect exploited people to give further evidence of ‘future harm’, via a medical professional, before they are recognised as too vulnerable to be held in prison-like settings. Experts warn the move will lead to survivors being detained on an even wider scale, and for longer.

Useful links

What is modern slavery? Via Anti Slavery International

“Modern slavery in the UK can take many forms, including forced sexual exploitation, domestic slavery or forced labour on farms, in construction, shops, bars, nail bars, car washes or manufacturing. Forced labour is the most common form of slavery in the UK, fueled by a drive for cheap products and services. A growing form of slavery is trafficking into crime. In the UK, it’s fuelled by the trafficking of primarily British children, forced into ‘county lines’ drug trafficking and trafficking of Vietnamese nationals forced to work in cannabis production.”

“Vulnerable people often take big risks in order to provide for their families. Typically, they can be offered an apparently good job in the UK. Often they take a loan from the traffickers in advance.

When they arrive in the UK, the situation is completely different. Their passport might be taken away and they’re told they need to pay off the debt before they can leave. Violence and threats are common. They are trapped here with no possessions, no means to return and totally reliant on their traffickers. Vulnerable British people are also targeted, especially children from disadvantaged backgrounds, to be groomed into drug criminal gangs in so-called ’county lines’ trafficking.”

Why are people held in immigration detention? Via Oxford University’s Migration Observatory

“Immigration detention refers to the Home Office practice of detaining foreign nationals for the purposes of immigration control. Policy reasons for detaining typically include one or more of the following: to effect the person’s removal; to establish their identity or the basis of their immigration or asylum claim; where there is reason to believe they will abscond if released on bail; or when release is not considered to be ‘conducive to the public good’. In some instances, the reasons for a person’s detention change while he or she is being held.”

How do modern slavery survivors end up in detention? Via After Exploitation

“The Home Office introduced a Detention Gatekeeper (DGK) function as part of the wider Adults at Risk (AAR) policy [introduced in 2016], which is supposed to identify individuals too vulnerable for detention. DGK assesses whether detention decisions are “proportionate” and is supposed to identify instances where “individuals may be at risk of harm in detention due to any vulnerabilities”. However, what little data we can publicly access on DGK indicates it rejects referrals for detention infrequently. During a House of Lords debate in September 2020, it was stated by the Government that “Since 2016, the gatekeeper has rejected more than 2,300 referrals for detention.” Given that, prior to the pandemic, around 25,000 people entered detention every year, this number of rejections appears very low.”

 


References

[1] FOI requests by After Exploitation + Women For Refugee Women, published in Survivors Behind Bars (2021). Accessible: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trafficking-modern-slavery-detained-immigration-home-office-b1797186.html

[2] Accessible: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/184/contents/made

[3] Accessible: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5150/documents/50839/default/

[4] Accessible: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/#:~:text=What%20is%20Secondary%20Legislation%3F,-Statutory%20instruments%20procedure&text=Secondary%20legislation%20is%20law%20created,and%20

Brook House Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) is a COVID-19 outbreak centre

After guidance from Public Health England, Brook House IRC has been deemed as an outbreak centre of COVID-19

We fear this could be calamity starting to unfold – one which was entirely avoidable ; Medical Justice warned in March that IRCs are high risk for clusters of COVID-19, and that staff provide a conduit for infection to and from the community.

Serco, who runs Brook House, distributed a letter to detainees informing them that the IRC has been deemed an outbreak centre and to stay in their rooms due to the risk.  Some of our clients did not understand the letter and it hadn’t been explained to them.

The letter says “new arrivals will be housed onto C & E wings that are at present not in isolation” – any staff moving between the various wings could pose an infection risk and any new admissions into any IRC would be utterly reckless.  Clearly, the Home Office’s measures up to now regarding COVID-19 have not worked.

Our clinicians are worried about our clients in immigration detention who have COVID-19 co-morbidities, putting them at risk of severe illness if infected.

It is extremely concerning that at Brook House IRC ‘Rule 35’ reports to flag up particularly vulnerable detainees, such as those at risk of serious illness, to the Home Office have been suspended.

Having persisted in detaining torture and trafficking survivors at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre with all the known risks means the Home Office have knowingly endangered vulnerable people who came to this country to seek safety.

The rush to detain and remove 1,000 migrants who arrived on small boats across the Channel by 31st December may have exacerbated an already dire situation.  The vast majority of these migrants are removed by chartered flights from Brook House IRC. Some of our clients there have been told their ‘removal directions’ have been cancelled due to the COVID-19 outbreak.  As most wings at Brook House IRC are in isolation, and with just a few weeks to go, it is possible that the Home Secretary’s plan to remove 1,000 migrants in this way by 31st December lies in tatters.  The financial costs may be considerable but ultimately detainees may pay the heaviest price with their health.

Since it was founded in 2005, Medical Justice has never before seen such high numbers of extremely vulnerable detainees being rushed so quickly through the process.  The current need and ongoing risks are unprecedented.

The Home Office now urgently needs to do the right thing and release detainees as soon as is safe in accommodation in the community can be arranged – this does not include in army barracks.

 

Further Reading

The Independent : Home Office forced to cancel deportations due to coronavirus outbreak in removal centre

Court of Appeal quashes policy that led to removing migrants from the UK without access to justice

In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal today quashed the Judicial Review and Injunctions (JRI) policy which enabled the refusal a migrant’s case and their forcible removal from the UK, within hours and in many cases without access to justice.

Over 40,000 removals were affected by the policy resulting in vulnerable people being put at risk. Some were recognised as having been removed unlawfully, were brought back to the UK and granted leave to remain.

The judgment from the Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Lord Justice Coulson emphasises the importance of the right of access to justice under our common law :

“The right to access the court is an absolute and inviolable right… the right to access to the court is not a relative right to be balanced against other rights and interests“

The policy includes “removal windows” whereby someone is given as little as 72 hours notice that they might be removed from the UK at some point during the subsequent 3 months, without any warning.

The Court found :

“… the Policy allows for no adequate opportunity – or, indeed, any opportunity at all – for the individual to take advice and lodge a judicial review challenging that decision before he or she is at risk of removal which arises immediately upon the adverse decision being taken and notified”

“whether an irregular migrant is removed before he or she has had an opportunity to obtain legal advice and apply to the court is a matter of pure happenchance. It is, in the legal sense, arbitrary and thus in any event unlawful.”

A Medical Justice spokesperson said :

“One of our society’s most precious treasures is access to justice. Chillingly, away from the public gaze, this policy denied that fundamental right on a massive scale causing serious harm to extremely vulnerable people and risking life. It was effectively a shortcut to removal. Quashing the policy brings us back towards equal access to justice for all.

“Many of our sick clients were subject to “removal windows” – we didn’t know if they would still be in the UK from one day to the next. Clients we have managed to remain in contact with have described terrible consequences. Others have not been heard of again.

“Cases where people are removed from the UK without access to legal representation are particularly concerning as they are unlikely to be known about by any independent organisation, making it difficult to know the true extent of the policy’s impact. Some cases only came to light when removals had been aborted by chance. “

Our instructed solicitor, Rakesh Singh, of the Public Law Project said:

“This is a case about access to justice, one of the fundamental values of the British constitution.

“The ‘removal windows’ policy shut people out of the legal process. It meant that when mistakes were made, people could not access the court to put things right, and led the Home Office to remove people with a right to be here – including a number who were caught up in the Windrush situation. Removing people in this way caused terrible injustices and placed many individuals and families in danger and into hardship, unnecessarily and unjustly.”

Explainer

A removal window notice can be given where arrangements for the person’s removal have not yet been made. The Home Office’s rationale is to prompt migrants to raise any human rights claims or other reasons for remaining in the UK. However migrants are expected to do this within the very short notice periods which is almost impossible if they do not have a lawyer. Even if they do make those further submissions within the short notice period, negative decisions which could be challenged in the courts can then be given to migrants shortly before removal and even on the same day, making it impossible for the individual to challenge an unlawful removal. The Court accepted that the extensive evidence which had been assembled by Medical Justice and PLP, “clearly shows that almost all decisions material to removal which are made in respect of applications and representations made following service of the notice of the removal window are made within the window period itself”.

Migrants who have had applications or appeals previously refused, may have valid reasons to make fresh submissions. For example, key issues were not previously identified, adequately evidenced and properly considered, including indicators that an individual was a trafficking victim. Or the person may have been in the UK for decades, and have UK-born children or grandchildren, or their circumstances have changed. Whether an immigration claim or a fresh submission has been outstanding for many years or made at or after the point of arrest, the Home Office can refuse them at the same time the migrant is arrested, detained and taken to an airplane. The court found that there were no sufficient safeguards in the policy that protect against unlawful removal.

 


Case Studies

Mr A is “Windrush” case. He came to the UK from the West Indies in the eighties, married here and was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain. He has lived here ever since and has a British child. He was arrested out of the blue from his home, and served with a “removal window”. He was unable to access legal advice in time inside the immigration removal centre he was held in. Luckily a friend was able to engage a solicitor who got an injunction the evening before he was due to be removed from the UK. The evidence that the solicitor obtained was voluminous – over 500 pages covering almost 30 years of continuous residence. This could definitely not have been compiled within 72 hours. It was eventually confirmed that he had Indefinite Leave to Remain all along and that he had been unlawfully detained.

 

Mr B. The Home Office refused to give any consideration to new information provided by Mr B that several of his relatives had been killed in his home country, which was highly relevant to his asylum claim because it indicated that he was in danger. The Home Office said that since he did not follow the correct procedure, they would not consider this claim. Mr B was told this at the same time he was detained for removal. He was removed that same day without having had access to legal advice. The Home Office later brought him back to the UK, accepting that his removal was unlawful, and granted him refugee status.

 

Mr C was a suicidal man suffering a serious psychotic illness who had no legal representative at the time. He is the father of a British child. He had been told to come to an interview. He was not interviewed but instead detained and removed on the same day with very limited anti-psychotic medication. Medical Justice was informed of his case and found him a solicitor. A judge ordered the Home Office to bring him back to the UK. The Home Office admitted that it had misused its powers, had prevented him from having access to legal advice and the court and had unlawfully detained and removed him. The Home Office later granted Mr C 30 months leave to remain on the grounds of his family life with his British child.

 

Mr D was issued a “removal window”. His marriage to a Gambian woman who had Indefinite Leave to Remain, and who was heavily pregnant with his child, had not previously been raised with or considered by the Home Office. The day the notice period ended he reported to the Home Office, was detained and told he would be removed the following day. Immigration Officers took him to his flat to collect belongings and saw that his wife was heavily pregnant. The next day he protested. The removal did not go ahead and the Home Office recorded that Mr D had ‘disrupted’ it. His wife gave birth to their son, a British citizen, during the removal window. Mr D informed the Home Office of the birth of his son the same day, and subsequently provided photographs and a copy of his son’s birth certificate naming him as the father. The Home Office refused to treat this as a fresh human rights claim based on his family life. Up until his removal some months later, Mr D and his wife made every effort to find a legal aid solicitor to represent them, but were unable to find one. He was removed from the UK, separating him from his wife and child. Following a legal challenge a Judge said that the refusal of the fresh human rights claim was unlawful and ordered the Home Office to bring Mr D back to the UK. Mr D was eventually able to return to the UK and the Home Office granted him 30 months leave to remain on the grounds of his Article 8 family life.

 


A copy of the judgment is available below, or on the Judiciary website (www.judiciary.uk) or BAILII

Medical Justice v SSHD: Approved Judgment

Contact: Medical Justice – Emma Ginn, Director, on 07786 517379 / emma.ginn@medicaljusticeorg.uk

Notes

  • Medical Justice applied for interim relief and the Administrative Court placed an injunction on use of the removal window policy in March 2019. The case was refused in September 2019. The injunction remained in force pending the Court of Appeal hearing.
  • The Court of Appeal heard Medical Justice’s appeal of that refusal on 7th July 2020. The hearing tied together challenges brought by Medical Justice and FB (Afghanistan), an individual who faced removal under the policy.
  • Medical Justice was represented by Charlotte Kilroy QC and Anthony Vaughan of Doughty Street Chambers, and Alison Pickup, PLP’s Legal Director, and the instructing solicitor was Rakesh Singh of PLP who has led our work on notice of removal since 2014.
  • FB’s barristers were Sonali Naik QC and Ali Bandegani of Garden Court Chambers and Alex Goodman of Landmark Chambers, instructed by Duncan Lewis solicitors.
  • The Equality and Human Rights Commission filed a written intervention and was represented by Stephanie Harrison QC of Garden Court Chambers and Shu Shin Luh of Doughty Street Chambers, instructed by Sara Brunet at the EHRC.
  • Medical Justice is a charity that sends volunteer doctors into immigration removal centres (IRCs) to assist detainees, documenting their scars of torture, medical conditions, and injuries sustained during removal attempts, and to challenge instances of inadequate healthcare. With our medical evidence, we identify systemic healthcare failures to the Home Office and NHS England.
  • In 2010, the Public Law Project (PLP) represented Medical Justice in our judicial review of the Home Office’s policy of providing less than 72 hours notice, or none at all, to specified categories of individuals. The High Court judgment, later upheld by the Court of Appeal, quashed that policy as an unconstitutional abrogation of the right of access to the court. Since then, Medical Justice and PLP have monitored the Home Office’s removal policies. In July 2018, PLP intervened in a judicial review (R (FB and NR) v SSHD) brought in the Upper Tribunal of the Home Office’s policy. Following that judgment, the policy was amended.