HMIP reports that deportees are at risk of abuse

Icon_article Published: August 13, 2009 09:52 by Medical Justice (Press Release) |

Tagged as: deportation migration state_violence
Neighbourhoods: doncaster lindholme uk

Over a year ago Medical Justice published “Outsourcing Abuse”, a report that analysed near 300 cases of alleged assault during detention and removal. This led to the Home Secretary commissioning an independent investigation into the allegations, which to date has yet to be published.

Click on a thumbnail for a slideshow view

An HM Inspector of Prisons (HMIP) report , published today, echoes many of our findings ; alleged abusive treatment, detainees self-harming, a lack of proper medical attention, aggressiveness of guards, and a “swift resort” to use of force, that in many cases the use of force led to abandonment or a removal and heightened the risk of ill-treatment or abuse. HMIP found that the “posturing and interference” by escorts appeared to have led even to the failure of the removal of a number of detainees were not previously disputing their removal.

“A year after the publication of the “Outsourcing Abuse” report the Chief Inspector of Prisons has published a similarly damning inspection on the escort and removal of immigration detainees. I am highly concerned that the Home Office has shown little motivation in addressing these issues which have been raised with them time and time again. We were told almost a year ago that there would be an investigation into the abuse of immigration detainees during escort and removal. I dearly hope that this is not a case of the Home Office sweeping scandal under the carpet in the hope that it will go away. The HMIP report brought out today and the tireless work of organisations like Medical Justice and other support groups suggest that it will not. It is still my hope that the Home Office will get their act together and do what they should have done years ago – ensure full and appropriate training of immigration officials, introduce a rigorous and fair complaints system, stop the removal of people with medical problems, and stop the removal of people to unsafe countries.”

Diane Abbott, MP

“We can see no justification for the use of force, which HMIP says in most cases led to failure of attempted removals – detainees are getting harmed unnecessarily. Injuries we have seen include fractured bones, nerve damage, a punctured lung, a dislocated knee and detainees being hurried through airport buildings in wheelchairs as a result. The private escort companies the Home Office contracts shouldn’t be allowed to use force if they have no proper monitoring of it, no routine medical examinations of injuries and no effective means of complaint against its misuse.”

Emma Ginn, Co-ordinator, Medical Justice

“As HMIP have, like us, found that safeguards were “singularly lacking”, it is quite clear that the whole system is failing. The Home Office routinely blames asylum seekers for resisting deportations but HMIP found a Sri Lankan detainee whose judicial review had been successful at the last moment who would have been removed had he not refused to board the plane.”

Harriet Wistrich, Birnberg Peirce & Partners, representatives of clients featured in “Outsourcing Abuse”

In November 2008, the Home Office’s own Complaints Audit Committee(CAC) reported that there were “endemic and enlarging problems” in misconduct investigations and “indications of rising discontent and continuing failures”. The CAC revealed that 79% of serious misconduct complainants were not interviewed 65% of responses to them were not defensible and 27% took over 1 year.

In response to the CAC report, Lin Homer, Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency, said they had implemented a “completely new complaints system” and that they were “beginning to see the bene?ts”. Yet HMIP have since found that not only were “detainees not informed of how to complain”, but that “escort staff themselves did not know what they would do if a complaint was made.”

HMIP found that the Home Office’s own contract monitors did not work to any clear criteria and sometimes “appeared to be part of the escort team” that they were meant to be monitoring. This gives us little comfort that the Home Office Professional Standards Unit, who investigate serious misconduct cases, really are "independent", as claimed by the Home Office. HMIP found, as did we, that medical examinations were not routinely carried out after the use of force or handcuffs, even when injuries were noted.

The HMIP report notes that one deportee who had malaria was “shaking and grey”. We are concerned that a responsible manager of the private escort company (whose medical qualifications are unknown) recommended a wheelchair for future removals of this deportee but reported that the deportee was given ‘a clean bill of health’.

HMIP detailed allegations of abuse and reported unprovoked use of force resulting in injury. We find one case HMIP reported as “typical” ; 15 officers were involved in escorting one detainee to the reception of the detention centre in which he was held. He was handcuffed and his legs were bound. He said that that they sprayed something in his nose while restraining him. He was shouting in the van – escorts put a white cloth in his mouth. At the airport he discovered that the removal was cancelled following contact from his solicitor. He was taken to Colnbrook detention centre, handcuffed and says the escorts were verbally abusive towards him. He was held in segregation. Although in pain he was only seen by a medic several days later. HMIP did not find incident reports for this case, despite specifically searching for them.

The Home Office said they would look into the cases we highlighted in Outsourcing Abuse, but in February, over 6 months after we published the report, they asked us for very basic information like names of complainants which we provided months earlier. They inquired about the “nature” of the complaints, which was all included in Outsourcing Abuse – it was as though they hadn’t even read the report. They were not sure which cases they had dealt with through their complaints procedure and asked for their own reference numbers.

We responded in February, but have heard nothing since. The Home Secretary had accused us of "not co-operating with repeated requests” - Diane Abbott MP challenged this matter by letter months ago but has had no response.

The Home Secretary also accused us of withholding evidence. We feel it is they who are withholding evidence. An example of this is the case of Anselme Noumbiwa, a Cameroonian torture survivor, who claims he was assaulted during a removal attempt on 14th July 2008, the very day we published “Outsourcing Abuse”. One of our volunteer doctors wrote a medico-legal report and took photos of his injuries. Mr Noumbiwa claims he was assaulted again on the 23rd October 2008. On the 27th October 2008, the detention centre took photographs of the injuries sustained in that removal attempt and this was confirmed by them in writing on the 12th November 2008. The Home Office complaints investigator described injuries shown in the photos and said they were “consistent with a violent struggle”. We asked David Wood (Strategic Director, Criminality & Detention Services Group, UKBA) for copies of the photos on the 24th November 2008 and again on the 30th April 2009, but the photos were not provided. Another attempt to remove Mr Noumbiwa from the UK was planned for 1st May 2009, which again was abandoned. On 5th May 2009 David Wood wrote “unfortunately his injuries were not photographed… I can only apologise for this but can state categorically that photographic evidence is not being withheld.” David Wood is our main contact for the Home Office’s (re)investigation of “Outsourcing Abuse” cases.

The Home Office complaints procedure includes allegations of criminal activity being reported to the police. Mr Noumbiwa did get a crime reference number from the police regarding the incident he reported to them, but there has been no investigation. The police in Kent, where Mr Noumbiwa was being detained, said “Dover referred it to Professional Standards UKBA saying that if they (UKBA) found any need for further investigation they should refer it to the Metropolitan police”. The Metropolitan Police said “there has been no police investigation due to no paperwork being sent from the detention centre to ourselves. I have viewed the crime report and several requests from our Crime Desk were made.”

We have no faith in the Home Office’s complaints process. Their process documentation is copious, yet it seems to mean nothing as they can’t even get the first step right – to acknowledge a detainee’s complaint has been received. Their process says that all complainants alleging serious misconduct will be interviewed, but they are not.

We have seen a complaint that Mr MK from the Democratic Republic of Congo says he submitted in March 2009 about alleged assault during a failed deportation attempt. He had no response from the Home Office and has not been interviewed. On the day of the next attempt to remove him, we forwarded the complaint to the Home Office asking them to defer removal at least until he had been interviewed. The Home Office claimed they had never received the complaint, that they would process it now, and that due to the “nature” of the complaint, it was not necessary to interview Mr KM and that his removal would go ahead as planned. Force was used again, and again the removal was abandoned. A further removal attempt was planned for Monday 11 August and Mr MK's solicitors haven't heard any further from him since then. They are still trying to get his complaints investigated in accordance with the Home Office's own rules. When we last spoke to Mr KM, he had not received the acknowledgement to his complaint which is meant to be issued in two working days, and the Home Office had still not shown any interest in interviewing him.

# ENDS #