Outsourcing Abuse

Ellie Keen — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:46:36 +0000

Executive Summary

Background

Last autumn, 2007, stories hit the headlines about alleged assaults and beatings of asylum seekers by security guards employed by private companies contracted to run immigration detention centres or to escort detainees being moved between centres or when being removed from the UK.

In October 2007, an article in the Independent made reference to campaigners having a “dossier” of 200 alleged assault cases. The Home Office said the assault allegations were “unsupported assertions” and that if there was evidence of mistreatment they would expect it to be provided to them for investigation. In many cases, those alleging assaults had already lodged complaints, providing information to the Home Office and asking them to investigate, but where followed up by the Home Office, the complaints had largely been dismissed. The Complaints Audit Committee, set up to monitor the Home Office’s procedures for investigating complaints about the conduct of staff, informed us that there were about 190 complaints about alleged assaults in the previous 12 months.

In October 2007, we did not have permission from all those alleging the assaults to provide the Home Office with further information. We have since sought their permission where possible and now present findings from our dossier that has reached nearly 300 cases of alleged assault. Many additional allegations of assault have been reported to us that we simply have not had the resources to consider and therefore have not been included in the dossier. Because of this, coupled with the fact that other victims are fearful of coming forward, we feel our dossier is just the tip of the iceberg.

We have found an alarming and unacceptable number of injuries have been sustained by those subject to forced removals. This dossier provides evidence of widespread and seemingly systemic abuse of one of the most vulnerable communities of people in our society, who have fled their own countries seeking safety and refuge. The alleged assaults took place between January 2004 and June 2008. In addition to our findings, 48 detailed case studies are included in Part 2.

Key findings

In all cases in our dossier, what may have started off as ‘reasonable’ force1 turned into what we consider to be excessive force.
One asylum seeker ended up with his leg in a plaster cast and a woman was pushed through airports in a wheelchair after having allegedly been assaulted. The most common form of injury recorded resulted from inappropriate use of handcuffing, including swelling and cuts to the wrist, sometimes leading to longlasting nerve damage. Other injuries included bruising and swelling to the face and fractures to the wrists, ribs or ankles. Often psychological consequences resulted, such as the onset or exacerbation of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), panic attacks, suicidal feelings and depression.
66 % of alleged assaults were against men and 34 % against women.
48% of the assaults occurred at the airport before the detainee was placed on the plane and 12 % took place in the transport van on the way to the airport. 24% of alleged assaults took place on the aeroplane before take-off and 3% after take-off. 7% took place in the van back to the detention centre after the removal had already failed and 6 % took place within detention centres.
Allegations of assault were made by people from over 41 counties. Almost three quarters of these were from Africa. The most common nationalities of those being removed were Ugandan, Nigerian, Cameroonian, Congolese (Democratic Republic of Congo) and Jamaican.
There were 27 alleged incidents involving families, comprising a total of 42 children, 5 of whom are alleged to have been assaulted themselves.
Many of those assaulted made allegations of racism against the escort; there are repeated accounts of abusive language used such as “black bitch” and “black monkey, go back to your own country.”
Alleged assaults took place on scheduled airline flights, charter flights and military planes. Private jets have also been arranged to remove people from the UK. It is not known exactly how many airlines are contracted to carry out this task, or how much they are paid, but the costs run into millions of pounds each year.
Few asylum seekers are able to make a complaint or seek redress. The relevant procedures and legal process are complex and not perceived to be independent. There is evidence that asylum seekers lodging complaints are subject to harassment and further abuse. Many victims are already traumatised and see no option but to try to simply forget what has happened.
The authorities appear reluctant to investigate reported assaults which often happen behind closed doors, with no witnesses. Cell mates who witness assaults may be quickly moved to another centre or deported. CCTV evidence miraculously disappears or is conveniently obsured at the crucial moment. In most cases allegations of assault were not upheld following investigation, although in some cases, there were concerns about the inadequacy of the investigation.
There is evidence that the police do not take allegations seriously. In some cases where the detainee reported the matter to the police, counter allegations of assault were made against the detainee. In a number of cases, detainees who have complained have been charged and prosecuted, although none we are aware of have been convicted. A number of people alleging assault have been able to bring a civil action cases, some of which have settled out of court. We are not aware, however, of any security guards or their employers being prosecuted for any assault related offence under the criminal law. Our evidence suggests that immigration detainees do not have equal access to the law.

Summary

Asylum applications are a 14-year low, yet the proportional use of detention has increased 7-fold. The government is driven by seemingly arbitrary targets on deportation and has just announced a near doubling of detention centre capacity. “Mass deportations” may follow if the government puts into effect its announcement made in August 2007 to deal with 450,000 unresolved asylum cases within 5 years or less. The increased use of detention and target-driven deportations may lead to further injuries and assault allegations.

There have been numerous inquiries into alleged abuse of immigration detainees over the years but we see no improvement.

While the practice of using private companies for running detention centres and escorting of forced removals may contribute to a certain level of “see no evil, hear no evil”, our understanding is that the Home Office is aware of an unacceptable level of alleged abuse through its own complaints procedure.

We consider the evidence in this report reveals what may amount to state sanctioned violence, for which ultimate responsibility lies with the Home Office.

Link to complete report

Harriet Wistrich, Birnberg Peirce & Partners.
Dr. Frank Arnold, Medical Justice.
Emma Ginn, National Coalition of Anti-Deportation Campaigns.
Contact: info@medicaljustice.org.uk
Tel: 07786 517379

abuse | ukwatch.net

Outsourcing Abuse

Executive Summary

Background

Key findings

Summary