Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP)Inspecting Immigration Detention31st March 2015

Bev Alden - Inspector

1Slide2

Role of HMIPTo ensure independent inspection of detention to report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public 2Slide3

History HMIP established in 1982 by an amendment to the 1952 Prison Act 1999 Immigration Act gave HMIP the power to inspect IRCs and those under escort. The UK ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture in 2003 and in March 2009 the UK’s national preventative mechanism was designated. HMIP can visit anywhere people are deprived of their liberty We now ‘make recommendations to … prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’Slide4

The UK National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)The NPM is made up of 20 existing bodies with powers to inspect and monitor places ofdetention.Members cover all four nations in the UK. Includes lay bodies and professional bodiesIn order to monitor detention and prevent torture, the NPM must be able to:Access all places of detention

Speak to detainees and others in privateChoose which places to visit and which people to talk to

Access information on places of detention, and on detainees and their treatment and conditionsSlide5

UK NPM members and their jurisdictionsEngland and Wales HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP)Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB)Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA)Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC)Lay Observers (LO) England Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England (OCC)

Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) Care Quality Commission (CQC)

Wales

Healthcare Inspectorate Wales (HIW)

Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales (CSSIW)

Scotland

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS)

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland (HMICS)

Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC)

Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland (MWCS)

Care Inspectorate (CI)

Independent Custody Visitors Scotland (ICVS)

Northern Ireland

Independent Monitoring Boards (Northern Ireland) (IMBNI)

Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI)

Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA)

Northern Ireland Policing Board Independent Custody Visiting Scheme (NIPBICVS)Slide6

What institutions do HMIP inspect? Prisons (adult, young adult, juvenile) Police custody Immigration detention Military detention Court custody Customs custody facilities Secure training centres for children Slide7

Inspection StandardsHMIP inspects against its own set of published standards called ‘Expectations’Outcomes referenced against international human rights standards and penal normsSeparate Expectations for:Male prisonersFemale PrisonersChildren and young peopleImmigration detentionPolice custodyCourt custodyArmed forcesSlide8

Inspection methods Independent and impartial Unannounced inspections Unfettered access, with ability to arrive unannounced, go anywhere and talk to anyone. Inspectors draw keys. Listen to detainees, focus on detainees voice Unfettered right to publish Outcome focusedReport published 16 weeks later

8Slide9

Healthy establishment testsSafetyRespectPurposeful activityPreparation for removal and release Detainees are held in safety and with due regard to the insecurity of their positionDetainees are treated with respect for their human dignity and the circumstances of their detention. The centre encourages activities and provides facilities to preserve and promote the mental and physical wellbeing of detainees.Detainees are able to make contact with family, friends, support groups, legal representatives and advisers, access information about their country of origin and be prepared for their release, transfer or removal. Detainees are able to retain or recover their property.Slide10

EvidenceTriangulationObservationGroup discussion with detaineesIndividual interviewsInterviews with staffExamination of documentationCasework analysisDetainee Survey: Outcome focussedConfidential Random but representative sample Results can be compared with other similar prisons, results from last inspectionSlide11

Immigration removal centres in UK11 immigration removal centresFour public sectorSeven privateEight centres exclusively maleThree mixture of male and female1 pre-departure accommodationFamilies with children34 Short-term holding facilities (STHFs)Three residential, 29 non-residentialThree facilities in FranceAbout 3000 immigration detaineesFurther 400 held in prisonsSlide12

Overseas escortsHMIP has inspected overseas enforced removals, including flights, since 2010 following the death of an Angolan detainee during deportationObserve detainees being collected from the IRC through to handover in the destination countryAnalysis of incident reports and use of force information for the previous three flights to that same country. Published standards/criteria for these inspections, freely available on the HMIP website. Service improvement plans from the Home Office within two months of reports being published. Slide13

Key findings 2014-15Detainees were transported and arriving at centres too late at night, and some were subject to excessive moves around the estateIRCs were safe with few fights and assaults, and use of force was low.Some IRCs looked and felt like a prisonSome security procedures were disproportionate.Welfare services were provided at IRCs but some required development, and not all detainees were adequately prepared for removal or release. Detainees were not permitted access to Skype or social networks to maintain contact with family and friends. Slide14

Many detainees had no access to a lawyer to help their case.The quality of Rule 35 reports was variable and did not all lead to releaseThere were some cases of prolonged detention with no clear justification.The quality of STHFs varied, and some people were detained there too long, but detainees generally felt safe.Overseas escorts were generally efficient, but we had concerns about some staff conduct and disproportionate security measures.Slide15

Positive outcomesGeneral improvement in treatment and conditions, especially in STHFs. Examples of policy influence:Force on children or pregnant women to effect removalInternet accessMobile phonesHMIP consulted on all new detention service orders. Chief inspector meets with ministers and operational head of Immigration EnforcementSlide16

Rule 35 Detention Centre RulesHealthcare staff should make a report to the Home Office where they consider a detainee’s health will likely be affected by detention, or if they might have suicidal intentions, or may have been a victim of torture. Some improvement in the rule 35 safeguard, but in many cases it is still ineffective. Healthcare professionals require training Quality of rule 35 reports varies significantlyNot all responses by immigration caseworkers to reports are sufficiently timely Many reports do not lead to release from detention, although some do e.g. Dover IRC, five of the last 16 reports had led to the release of the detainee, a much higher proportion than we usually see.Slide17

Victims of Trafficking The National Referral MechanismCouncil of Europe Convention on Action against Human Trafficking 2008 A process for identifying and supporting victims of traffickingMulti agencyFirst responders make referrals into the mechanismCompetent authorities - UK Human Trafficking Centre and Home OfficeTwo stage decision making process, no detention within this period.Victims may be granted leave to remain, dependent on circumstancesAwareness of the mechanism is variable.Slide18

Children and FamiliesThe Cedars pre departure accommodation for families:Time limited detention42 families were held at the centre during 2013 for an average of just over three days, some on more than one occasion. Families were held at the centre safely. Barnardo’s staff play an important role in the centreA well managed establishment, but the distress of families passing through the centre and its potential impact on the children involved is disturbing. Force no longer used against pregnant women and children unless it is to prevent harm. The Cedars centre remains an example of best practice in caring for families who are to be removed.Slide19

The National Independent Commission on Enforced Removals2012 report made four main recommendations:The need for a multi-disciplinary panel for complex returnsThe need for a more robust system for regular and appropriate licensing of contracted detainee custody officers (DCOs) and escort staffThe need for independent oversight of the enforced removal processThe need for pain-free restraint techniques appropriate for use during enforced removals.Slide20

Alternatives to detentionCurrently in the UKThe requirement to reportElectronic monitoringImmigration bail – but this is a mechanism for releaseThe APPG Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom (2014): ‘There needs to be a shift…away from a reliance on end-stage enforcement and towards engagement and compliance’ Time limited detentionCommunity based resolutionsDetention to be used sparinglyIntroduce a wider range of alternatives to detentionSlide21

Email:beverley.alden@hmiprisons.gsi.gov.ukWebsite:http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/