Serco under the spotlight

Serco, which runs detention centres in the UK and Australia, has accused Australian detainees of self-harming in order to use it as a ‘bargaining tool’, the news comes as three people have died in the UK, two in Colnbrook run by Serco.

Read more

Source: Corporate Watch

Deaths in detention centres

The news coverage over the weekend reporting on the very recent deaths of three men in detention centres is yet another reminder that the system is, in my view, truly abhorrent.

The Guardian reported that two men died from suspected heart attacks at Colnbrook near Heathrow airport.  One of the men is Muhammad Shukat, who was 47 years old and of Pakistani nationality.  He died on 2 July.  The article reports that there was some considerable delay between the time that Muhammad Shukat collapsed at 6am and when his roommate raised the alarm and the time when an ambulance was actually called at 7.20am.  A post-mortem found the provisional cause of death to be coronary heart disease.

The second man who died at Colnbrook has not yet been named, but he seems to have been relatively young at 35 years of age.  He was found dead in his cell at 10.30am on 31 July. The post-mortem found the cause of death to be a ruptured aorta and his death is being treated as unexplained.

The third man, also aged 35 years old, killed himself at the Campsfield House detention centre in Oxfordshire on 2 August.

As Emma Ginn from Medical Justice says in the Guardian article, this only highlights the already very high level of concern held in respect of the provision of healthcare in detention centres.  Whether that is in response to emergencies or in terms of longer term medical conditions.  She sets out that:

“Based on medical evidence from many hundreds of detainees, Medical Justice has documented the disturbingly inadequate healthcare provision that often vulnerable immigration detainees are subjected to in Colnbrook and other immigration removal centres… [this] combined with the perilous and frightening conditions of detention, is a lethal cocktail, a disaster waiting to happen.”

A smidgeon of comfort is to be found in the recent case-law on unlawful detention. Faced with such tragic events, I do have difficulty with describing the courts’ favourable rulings a success.  Nevertheless, the High Court ruled on Friday 5 August in S v SSHD [2011] EWHC 2120 (Admin) that the UKBA had unlawfully detained a man with serious mental illness between April and September 2010 and that the circumstances of his detention at Harmondsworth breached Article 3 ECHR, the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.

It was well documented in S’s case that, both from his time in prison and in a psychiatric hospital, that detention had caused deterioration in his psychiatric state, precipitating psychotic symptoms and incidents of serious self harm.  The medical reports that followed S from the hospital on 23 April 2010 specifically warned that detention would cause him to regress to a state that he would once again require hospital admission.  However in deciding to detain S, the UKBA, inexplicably, stated that there was “no evidence” that he was mentally ill. The High Court found that the failure at the outset to understand and appreciate the nature and degree of S’s mental illness and to apply its own published policy regarding the detention of those with serious mental conditions to the circumstances of S’s case was repeated by UKBA officials until his release on bail by the High Court on 29 September 2010.

It is believed to be the first time that a UK court has found detention at an immigration removal centre to have breached Article 3 and the case has been adjourned for the issue of relief and damages to be considered (see here for press release and here for the full judgment).

And talking of damages, the Court of Appeal found in OM, R (on the application of) v SSHD [2011] EWCA Civ 909 that though the detention of a mentally ill person was unlawful due to a failure by the Secretary of State to consult her own policy, she was not entitled to damages as she could have been lawfully detained if the policy had been applied.  By now that outcome will probably sound familiar to you and of course follows the Supreme Court judgment in Lumba (see here for previous FM post).

So I have to ask:  if ordering the UKBA to pay damages is not option, do we have to wait for more deaths and/or inhuman and degrading treatment before we truly get to the bottom of this ?

For more statistics compiled by Medical Justice see here.

Three deaths in immigration detention

By Harmit Athwal| Institute of Race Relations

Is it significant that two people have been found dead in two different detention centres in as many days – and three have died in a month?

All that the Home Office will confirm is that on Sunday 31 July ‘A 35-year-old male being held at Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre died’ and that it is in the ‘process of contacting his family’. As yet the man has not been named, nor has any information on his nationality or the circumstances of his death been released. However, there have been reports from the centre that the man was possibly American. Colnbrook (next to Harmondsworth detention centre close to Heathrow airport) is run by Serco, which also operates the London bike hire scheme and DLR (amongst many other businesses).

Then, on Tuesday 2 August, an as yet unidentified man, who was apparently facing imminent deportation, was found hanged at Campsfield removal centre near Oxford. The centre is run by the private company, MITIE care and custody. Conflicting reports suggest he was either found hanged or that he cut himself with razor blades.

A spokesperson from the Campaign to Close Campsfield (http://closecampsfield.wordpress.com/), which held a vigil in Oxford following the death, said: ‘This is yet another shocking event in the history of Campsfield House, where innocent people are locked without time limit, and in daily fear of removal to the nightmare conditions that drove them to leave their home country in the first place. Just being locked up in these conditions is enough to seriously affect a person’s mental health.’

Death three weeks earlier at Colnbrook

Shockingly, these two deaths occurred within days of one another and just a few weeks after 47-year-old Pakistani migrant, Muhammed Shuket, died on his way to hospital from Colnbrook on 2 July.

What is happening in detention centres? Are they overcrowded like prisons? Or has the rate of deportations increased? A recent report in the Guardian[1] revealed that people held at Tinsley House (run by G4S) were being taken to the airport for deportation as ‘reserves’ in case others could not be deported. This practice has been termed ‘distressing and inhumane’ by the Chief Inspector of Prisons.

The use of force during deportations has also been highlighted in recent weeks after new research was published which found that seated restraint techniques increased the risk of harm or death, with volunteers who took part in restraint experiments, repeatedly reporting that they were unable to breathe.[2] The research is particularly significant, as it appears that Jimmy Mubenga died after apparently being restrained in such a way during his deportation. (Read an IRR News story: ‘Justice for Jimmy Mubenga’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2010/december/ha000012.html))

Very little is known about the three men who have died in recent weeks and very little will probably be revealed about them and the circumstances of their deaths until their inquests which are unlikely to be held for some years. We must find ways of holding the Home Office and its contractors to account, and we must ensure that such deaths are not forgotten by the passage of time.

Other deaths in immigration detention centres

Below we list the deaths of the fourteen others who have died immigration detention centres since 1989.[3]

* Eliud Nguli Nyenze (15/4/10) A 40-year-old Kenyan man died at Oakington removal centre in Cambridge after apparently suffering a heart attack. Campaigners and other detainees alleged that he had been refused medical care. Following his death a disturbance erupted at Oakington and at least 60 people were transferred to prisons. In the days following the death the private company that runs the centre, G4S, was stripped of its British Safety Council award for its ‘commitment to improving health and safety’. An inquest in October 2010 was told that he had collapsed in his room. Earlier, despite complaining that he wasn’t well, he had been refused paracetamol. An ambulance took twenty minutes to reach the centre and the nurse who went to treat him did not take a defibrillator with her. The Home Office pathologist could find no cause of death but suggested sudden adult death syndrome. The coroner recorded a verdict that he died of natural causes, a verdict Eliud’s family were unhappy with.

* Bereket Yohannes (19/1/06) A 26-year-old Eritrean was found hanged in a shower block at Harmondsworth. According to other detainees at the centre, he was fearful of deportation and found conditions at the centre ‘unbearable’. He also spoke of his intention to take his life. An inquest in March 2007 was told how he had previously tried to take his own life while he was held at Dover removal centre a month prior to his death, and found that he took his own life.

* Manuel Bravo (15/9/05) An Angolan, who was detained in Yarl’s Wood in Bedford with his 13-year-old son, was found hanged in a stairwell on the morning of his 35th birthday and the day he was due to be deported. His young son was transferred to the care of members of his father’s church in Leeds. Campaigners and members of Manuel’s church called for a public inquiry into the death and the ‘illegal detention’ of Manuel who claimed he had not even received a decision on his asylum appeal and therefore could not understand why he had been served with a deportation order. In September 2006 the inquest recorded a narrative verdict that Manuel took his life in the belief that it could secure his son’s future in the UK. (Read an IRR News story: ‘Two asylum seekers took their own lives within 24 hours’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/september/ha000021.html))

* Ramazan Kumluca (27/6/05) An 18-year-old Kurdish asylum seeker from Turkey found hanged in Campsfield House. He had been detained for over four months and was said to be depressed after bail was refused. In July 2006, an inquest found that he had taken his own life. Police read out a statement from fellow detainees who spoke of his fears for the future as he faced deportation to Italy.

* Kenny Peter (7/11/04) A 24 year-old asylum seeker died in Charing Cross hospital, nearly three weeks after sustaining serious injuries after jumping from a second-floor landing at Colnbrook. He suffered from mental health problems and while held in detention it was recommended at least six times that he be referred to a psychiatrist – yet this was never followed up. The inquest in September 2006 recorded a lengthy narrative verdict that listed numerous deficiencies and failures by immigration staff, staff at the centre and in the healthcare unit at Colnbrook. (Read an IRR News story: ‘Kenny Peter’s inquest points to asylum failures’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2006/october/ha000013.html))

* Tran Quang Tung (23/7/04) A 35-year-old Vietnamese man found hanged in Dungavel removal Centre, he had been transferred days earlier from Harmondsworth following the disturbance after the death of Sergey Baranyuk. A fatal accident inquiry was told that Tran had been detained on 19 July for breaching bail conditions. The inquiry was told how he arrived in the UK in April 2004 and claimed asylum after having tried to claim asylum in Germany). A nurse who saw him at Harmondsworth did not know what language he spoke nor did she use an interpreter. On 21 July he was transferred to Dungavel by bus with 59 others after the disturbance. Medical staff who examined him at Dungavel were again unable to communicate with him. When an immigration officer served him with his removal notice, for 27 July, she did not have an interpreter with her. A solicitor saw him on the day of his death and was unable to have any ‘meaningful’ discussions as Tran spoke such little English. The fatal accident inquiry recommended that detained people, who did not speak good English should have access to interpreters during interviews and that documents should also be translated.

* Sergey Baranyuk (19/7/04) A 31-year-old Ukrainian was found hanged in Harmondsworth. His death sparked a night of disturbances at the centre and led to all the detainees being transferred to prisons and other detention centres. The inquest was told little about Sergey as very few people could remember him, staff at the centre and immigration staff had very little contact with him in the two months that he was held in detention. He had been assigned to the fast-track system despite having agreed to voluntary return three days after submitting his asylum claim. The inquest jury recorded a verdict that he ‘took his own life’. (Read an IRR News story: ‘Sergey forgotten at Harmondsworth’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2006/december/ha000010.html))

* Kabeya Dimuka-Bijoux (1/5/04) From the DRC, he was held at Haslar for nearly two months and died after collapsing while exercising on a treadmill. Staff attempted to resuscitate him but failed and he was pronounced dead in the gym. An inquest in July 2005 recorded a verdict of death by natural causes. However there were reports that he had died from injuries sustained two months earlier when police and officials from Reliance House immigration centre in Liverpool allegedly attacked him. (Read an IRR News story: ‘Inquest rules asylum seeker died from natural causes at Haslar’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/july/ha000014.html))

* Elmas Ozmico (12/7/03) A 40-year-old Kurdish asylum seeker died three days after being admitted to hospital suffering from septicaemia/ necrotising fasciitis. She had arrived at Dover on 8 July 2003 after travelling clandestinely from Turkey; it was during the journey she developed an abscess on her thigh. On arrival in the UK, she claimed asylum and her nephew (with whom she had travelled) requested a doctor and an interpreter. He says this request was ignored, as were subsequent ones. The family spent the night in detention in Dover detention centre and the following day Elmas requested a doctor, but it was not until she collapsed that it was realised that she was very ill and needed an ambulance to take her to hospital. An inquest found that she died of natural causes.(Read an IRR News story: ‘Asylum seeker death in Dover from ‘natural causes” (http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/july/ha000006.html))

* Mikhail Bognarchuk (31/1/03) A 42-year-old Ukrainian was found hanged at Haslar removal centre on the day he was due to be deported. An inquest recorded a suicide verdict. (Read an IRR News story: ‘Haslar – a place of no return’ (http://www.irr.org.uk/2003/february/ha000005.html))

* Olga Blaskevica (7/5/03) A 29-year-old Latvian woman was murdered in the family holding area at Harmondsworth by her mentally ill partner, hours before the pair were due to be deported.

* Robertas Grabys (24/1/00) A 49-year-old Lithuanian was found hanged in Harmondsworth on the day he was due to be deported. A report into his death criticised the private company that was in charge of Harmondsworth at the time (Burns International). An internal Home Office inquiry found that the company did not have a formal policy to prevent suicides and that there was insufficient care. (His body was not found for over one hour as guards did not check the room, although he was known to suffer from a depressive illness.) An inquest recorded an open verdict.

* Kimpua Nsimba (15/6/90) A 24-year-old Zairean was found hanged in Harmondsworth, where no one had spoken to him in over four days. An inquest recorded a suicide verdict.

* Siho Iyugiven (5/10/89) A 27-year-old Kurdish refugee burned to death after barricading himself in his cell at Harmondsworth. His asylum claim had failed and he was facing deportation. He and his cellmate went on hunger strike, barricaded themselves in and set bedding alight as a protest. Smoke detectors were not working, few fire extinguishers worked and there were no sprinklers. An inquest recorded a misadventure verdict.

The IRR monitors the deaths of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants and our most recent report Driven to Desperate Measures: 2006-2010 can be read here (http://www.irr.org.uk/2010/october/ha000024.html).

—-
FOOTNOTE

Endnotes: [1] Alan Travis, ”Inhumane’ act of taking deportation reserves to airport condemned’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/26/deportation-reserves-airport-condemned), Guardian, 26 July 2011. [2] Alan Travis, ‘ Restraining technique used by officials ‘increases risk of death”’ (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/27/restraining-technique-increases-risk-death

Britain is still no refuge for refugees

Despite Nick Clegg’s promises, child detention never quite went away and is now making a comeback.

Read more

Source: Guardian

Demo against new family detention centre

30 July 2011

A demonstration against the new ‘pre-departure accommodation centre’ for families which is due to open this summer at Pease Pottage.

* Saturday 30 July 2011, 1pm

* Muster Green Park, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH16 4AG

—-
FOOTNOTE

Bring banners, instruments and placards.

Events listing is provided for information only. Inclusion in this listing should not be taken to imply that HAT News supports an event or is involved in organising it.

HAT News is not responsible for the content of external websites.

State-sponsored cruelty

The coalition government promised to end child detention in asylum cases. Instead it has hired Barnardo’s to help run a new detention centre. Richard Goulding reports

Read full article here

Critical HM Inspector of Prisons reports published

Source: Free Movement

HM Inspectorate of Prisons yesterday published two reports based on unannounced inspections of the short term immigration holding facilities at Heathrow Terminals 3 and 4 (Terminal 3 report here and Terminal 4 report here). The reports are broadly positive and on the whole the detention facility staff come out of the reports quite well. However, the reports are very seriously marred by one awful incident that occurred during the inspection of Terminal 4:

A European Union national child was detained without the necessary authority (IS91). The father was a non-EU national who had lived in the UK and was returning following a visit to his country of origin. The immigration officer brought the father and child to the holding room with only authority to detain the father. The DCO rightly challenged the officer and said she was unable to detain the child without the IS91. The immigration officer told the DCO to book the child in as a visitor, which her line manager agreed to. This meant that the child’s detention would not have been recorded on UKBA or G4S records and would have under-recorded the number of children being held and the average length of detention. Moreover, holding the child without an IS91 could have been unlawful. The child was signed into the visitors’ book and given a rub-down search by an officer wearing latex gloves. The officer said to the child: ‘You’re a big boy now so I have to search you’ – even though we were not searched when we entered the holding room and were treated as visitors. The father’s mobile telephone was taken from him yet he was not offered a free telephone call. Instead of being taken to the family room, the father and child were held in the adult room. The father had not been formally interviewed by an immigration officer and was very distressed at the prospect of being refused entry and separated from his son. When we spoke with him he did not understand what was going to happen to him next. He broke down in tears in front of his child and the other detainees, which was humiliating for him and distressing for the child. After we advised the detainee that he was entitled to make a telephone call, he spoke to G4S who granted his request. The detainee’s distress could have been alleviated had he been able to make the telephone call earlier. The child was not given an activity pack until we requested one on his behalf.

The reports also highlight other unnecessary measures, such as staff wearing high visibility vests when escorting people to be removed, thus unnecessarily drawing attention to them, and poor or non existent training for airline staff, who also unnecessarily drew attention to those being removed and incorrectly referred to them in front of other passengers as ‘deportees’. All of this is unnecessarily demeaning, over and above detaining these people in the first place.

The incident with the 5 year old child is indefensible and it does make one wonder what happens when inspectors are not looking over the shoulders of detention and immigration staff. The Immigration Officer must have known there was no basis to detain an EEA national or a child, so for that child then to get the pat down when rather dishonestly booked into the facility as a visitor is very worrying. And why detain the father at all in these circumstances? As the parent of a a French child he probably had a right to enter the UK anyway. Understanding of the section 55 duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, basic European Community law and indeed basic common sense are still somewhat lacking at ground level in the UK Border Agency.

Some in the sector will recall one of the inspectors, Colin Carroll, from his time at Oakington and Leeds, and it is good to see him in action.

Long detention periods for Harmondsworth migrants

The Independent Monitoring Board at the Harmondsworth immigration removal centre has uncovered cases of detainees being held up to three years, which has been deemed excessive.

Read more

Source: Guardian

Breach of confidentiality in Sri Lankan asylum return

An urgent investigation is required as a matter of extreme urgency into an accepted breach of confidentiality in respect of the case of a  Sri Lankan Tamil woman detained by the UKBA and pending removal to Sri Lanka on 16 June 2011. It is important to stress that UKBA do not dispute that the breach has occurred as described below.

The woman in question [XT] had an appeal determined on the 29th December 2010. The Immigration Judge had found her claim to be lacking in credibility. Consequently enforcement action has been initiated along with action against other failed asylum seekers. Sources say  as many as 80-100 are due to be placed on a charter flight on the 16 June 2011 (see here, here, here and here, for example). The fact that there is a removal en masse arguably itself gives rise to significant concern as to the treatment of the returnees  on return, given that the nature of removal will attract attention to them and identify the returnees as failed asylum seekers. See this previous post (slightly out of date now) on general concerns regarding return of Tamils to Sri Lanka.

On 12 May 2011 XT was interviewed in detention in the UK by an official from the Sri Lankan High Commission. She was unrepresented when this interview occurred and her representatives had no notification of the interview.

Ostensibly the interview was for the purposes of verification of identity and nationality.

XT noted with alarm that the official from the Sri Lankan High Commission had a document that had previously been retained by the Home Office in its file which was produced in support of XT’s appeal hearing.

The document related to XT’s claim that her cousin who had been forced to join the LTTE , was shot in April 2008 and had XT’s account details on his person. The letter from the police requested that XT collect the body. This is the document that the SLHC had in its possession.

During the interview with the SLHC, XT was asked why she had come to the UK. Whilst XT was responding the SLHC official produced the letter from her file. It is further claimed by XT that the interview was recorded on CCTV.

Consequently XT complained to her solicitor that her document had been passed by the UKBA to the SLHC without her permission or notification. XT  expressed her fears at the prospect of return.

XT’s solicitors submitted a fresh asylum claim on the basis that the possession of an incriminating document and the nature of the interview with the SLHC gave rise to persecutory risk on return.

On the 1^st June 2011 the UKBA said this in response to the fresh claim made on  the 16 May 2011:

‘Whilst it is accepted that the Police Memo was included in an Emergency Travel Document Pack sent to the SLHC to assist in your re documentation, it is not accepted that the presence of this document places you at risk on return as it is not accepted that you were ever wanted by the police for assisting the LTTE’.

This incident raises the following concerns:

1. Why has there been no investigation of such a serious breach of confidentiality of an asylum claim and the document submitted in support of the claim?
2. How did an incriminating document from the Home Office file find its way into the ETD pack?
3. What other documents have been placed in the pack? XT’s solicitors asked for confirmation of a full list of all the documents submitted in the pack and have received no response.
4. What is happening to other returnees who ought to now request proof of the contents of their ETD packs in their cases?
5. Why is the SLHC permitted to interview returnees in UKBA custody as to their asylum claims?
6. Does the UKBA not have a duty to ensure that returnees in its custody are not placed at risk on return , by ensuring that returnees are not interviewed unrepresented in custody about their asylum claims?

Until these matters are fully resolved and scrutinised by an Independent Tribunal  there are obvious concerns as to whether it is safe to return any returnee on the 16 June 2011 or any other date unless each returnee can be satisfied that there the UKBA has a secure system in place that respects the privacy of each returnee and ensures that UKBA actions do not directly or indirectly aggravate risk on return.

At the time of writing there are growing claims made by returnees of detailed questions being asked during the documentation process by the SLHC as to the content of their asylum claims and LTTE connections. There is a strong inference that the UKBA either known this is happening or are reckless as to the consequences.

UKBA attempts to detain pregnant woman

A recent report has revealed significant failures of arrest teams to comply with official guidance after an immigration arrest team was sent on a raid of a woman’s house with intent to detain her without knowing she was pregnant.

Full story

Source: Guardian

« Previous Page — Next Page »