The use of unlawful
force against immigration detainees
Report compiled by: Campaign Against Racism Fascism
(CARF), Stop Arbitrary Detentions at Yarl's Wood (SADY), National Coalition
of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC)
CARF, SADY, and NCADC have documented 35 cases
referred to four solicitors' firms (Birnberg Peirce & Co, Hickman & Rose, Christian Khan, Harrison
Bundey) regarding alleged assaults against immigration detainees during the
removals process and/or while held in detention. The cases mainly relate to
assaults in transit - either between detention centres or during a removal.
Some of these cases we have documented may also
be included in the report, Harm on Removal: Excessive Force against Failed
Asylum Seekers by the Medical Foundation. From their medical evidence the Medical
Foundation found that 12 out of the 14 cases indicated excessive or gratuitous
force had been used.
The vast majority of these cases have come to
light through visitors to immigration detainees. Such visitors are volunteers,
many of who have full-time jobs - despite best efforts, visitors only get to
see about 10 per cent of the detainee population. Visitor and support groups
receive calls from distressed injured detainees on a daily basis. As such groups
are largely unfunded they do not have the resources to log all allegations
that they receive. The most serious cases are referred to solicitors. We believe
visitors only get to see 'the tip of the iceberg' of detainees who have been
assaulted - this report only gives a glimpse of what the fuller picture may be;
we believe most detainees who are assaulted are removed from the UK.
Who is involved?
Our findings show that 34 per cent of allegations have been made against Group
4, now owned by Global Solutions Limited (GSL), and Loss Prevention International.
Name of defendant
|
Percentage of cases |
| GSL/Group 4 |
30 |
| Loss Prevention International |
17 |
| Unspecified |
20 |
| United Kingdom Detention Services (UKDS) |
9 |
| Wackenhut |
6 |
| RSI |
6 |
| More than one contractor |
6 |
| Home Office |
3 |
| Securicor Justice Services |
3 |
Where did it happen?
Most of the cases that we have documented involve allegations of abuse at the
airport or while in transit to the airport.
| Location |
Percentage of cases |
| At an airport |
20 |
| Heathrow airport |
20 |
| Yarl's Wood Detention Centre |
14 |
| Harmondsworth Detention Centre |
8 |
| Unspecified |
8 |
| Gatwick airport |
6 |
| En route to airport |
6 |
| Haslar Detention Centre |
3 |
| Dungavel Detention Centre |
3 |
| Campsfield Detention Centre |
3 |
| During removal |
6 |
| More than one location |
3 |
Injuries
Injuries sustained include:
* Cuts, bruises and swelling (majority of cases)
* Nerve damage (from handcuffs)
* Sexual assault
* Urethra/ groin damage
* Cracked shoulder
* Fractured finger
* Exacerbation of psychological problems
* Serious head injury
In some cases, independent doctors have documented
these injuries. However it is extremely difficult to find available and appropriately
qualified doctors to go into detention centres at short notice to conduct an
examination free of charge. On occasion by the time we have been able to find
such a doctor, the detainee has already been removed. Independent doctors can
be commissioned by a solicitor as and when a legal action is initiated - the
doctor is then funded by legal aid. However often by this stage injuries are
no longer visible.
Police action
Most of the cases were reported to the police;
5 per cent resulted in an arrest; 5 per cent are currently being investigated;
in 25 per cent of cases the results of the police investigation are not known
and in 65 per cent of those allegations reported to the police they decided
to take no further action.
We have concerns about the willingness of different
police forces to investigate allegations. There are also indications that many
allegations are inadequately investigated and in some cases, not investigated
at all. Particularly worrying are instances such as one case in which the contractor
has agreed to compensate the victim but the complaint to the police led to
no arrests, let alone a prosecution.
Furthermore, we have concerns that emergency call
facilities have been withdrawn from centres, so that immigration detainees
have no access to the emergency services.
Status of case
Most of the cases we examined are ongoing; a small
percentage have been settled.
Other information
In at least six of the 35 cases we examined, the
detainee was 'successfully' removed. Two victims of these 'successful' removals
needed hospitalisation, in their country of origin, as a result of their injuries
- both are female.
Conclusions
± The Home Office should be held to account for the actions of its contractors
± The Home Office has failed to demonstrate that it has acted on the outcome
of previous reports of assault allegations in any meaningful or tangible way
- e.g. the Prison Ombudsman Inquiry into allegations of violence and abuse
at Yarl's Wood, which concluded that most of what was alleged to have happened
did happen.
± We call for a full Public Inquiry into the conditions of immigration
detention in the UK.
Notes to Editors
Why does an immigration detainee resist removal?
± Many have been persecuted, detained and tortured in their home country
previously
± Many fear further persecution on their return
± Many are married and have children here.
± Some may have a business or other financial interests in the UK.
What happens to those who resist removal?
± Sometimes they are brought back to a detention centre and very often
put into segregation
± Sometimes other detainees are told they have been removed (from the
country to another centre)
± They may have difficulty accessing medical treatment
± Sometimes they are threatened by detention centre staff
Why does an assault against an immigration detainee occur?
± There is anecdotal evidence that there is a financial motivation if
a 'successful' removal occurs.
± There is no monitoring of removals, therefore little 'come back'.
± Detention Custody Officers/ escorts may simply 'enjoy' using force
± They know that evidence of unlawful force is very hard to obtain.
Most allegations do not result in a solicitor taking up a case because
± Most detainees are not aware of their rights or that any action may
be possible
± Many detainees do not have any friends, family or visitor to help them
progress a claim
± Some detainees feel or are intimidated by the perpetrator(s) of the
assault to not complain
± Some detainees have been threatened with counter prosecution for actions
they may have taken in self defence (and in most cases, such charges have been
subsequently dropped)
± They may conclude it is a waste of time because of lack of evidence
available - e.g. no CCTV coverage or blank / obscured CCTV
± The detainee may not able to identify which contractor employs the person
who assaulted them
± Witnesses may not want to be identified - a woman who witnessed mistreatment
of detainees on a plane says she was "berated by immigration officials for 'interfering
in government business,'" and recently witnesses on an Air France flight were
threatened with legal action against them.
± Detainees may simply make a straightforward complaint to the Home Office
or its contractor, but many are not informed of the complaints procedure and
may be removed before a complaint is concluded.
Full report on The use of excessive /gratuitous force against immigration detainees
will be available in June 2005.
Source for this page:
Campaign Against Racism Fascism (CARF), Stop Arbitrary Detentions at Yarl's Wood
(SADY), National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns (NCADC)
