MISTAKES
115. We have received several accounts of removals
which have taken place, or been attempted, inappropriately. Wackenhut
sent us details of a case in which removal should not have been
attempted: that of a 12 year-old child who had been operated on
a week earlier to have his spleen removed and who had "tubes
and wires coming out of various parts of his body".[152]
While the Immigration Service was apparently aware of the child's
condition, and had sanctioned the removal, Wackenhut was not notified
beforehand. The removal was eventually halted at the airport when
the child's mother produced a letter from the hospital confirming
that he was unfit to travel and needed regular medical supervision.
The Immigration Service accordingly cancelled the removal directions
and granted the family temporary admission.[153]
116. Several organisations have drawn our attention
to cases in which individuals have been removed mistakenly, before
the end of their legal case, or when asylum or leave to remain
has been granted. The Law Society informed us of a case in which:
A child client of one of our members was arrested
for a driving offence. He could not remember his home phone number,
having always read the number from his mobile phone. He was carrying
the mobile at the time of his arrest but it was not charged. The
police officers refused to charge the mobile for him. The child
was unable to contact his mother and was removed from the country
unlawfully as his mother had a pending application under the Human
Rights Act. He was outside of the UK for three weeks before the
Immigration Service returned him. During this time his mother
did not know what had happened to him.[154]
117. The Tamil Information Centre said that asylum
seekers with the right to remain in this country for the duration
of their appeal have been returned to Sri Lanka even though appeal
rights were still pending:
An example is the case of [name supplied] who was
deported to Sri Lanka on 24 April 2001 and the Home Office acknowledged
that the case had not been finally resolved. The Home Office was
ordered to return [him] to the UK from Sri Lanka.[155]
118. When questioned as to how mistakes such as this
could have arisen, the Minister of State told us that:
There have been a very small number of cases [ ...
] where people have been removed before their process has finally
ended. That has usually been as a result of a very late representation
not being communicated to the removal centre in time to stop that
removal.[156]
119. It is clearly unacceptable that any removals
should take place when status has been granted or before the final
determination has been arrived at. We recommend that mistaken
removals are recorded, audited and the number of cases published
each year. We further recommend that the Immigration and Nationality
Directorate operate checking mechanisms to ensure that, as far
as humanly possible, this does not happen. In particular
we suggest that it should be made clear to the companies responsible
for removals that if their staff are concerned about a particular
case they should clear the matter with higher management and the
Immigration Service before proceeding.
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
120. We have received several complaints against
the Immigration Service and escorting companies which amount to
serious accusations of mistreatment. The Association of Visitors
to Immigration Detainees told us that "when men are taken
to the airport for removal they are sometimes assaulted in the
vans". They gave the following example:
IK was recently taken to the airport from a Removal
Centre and held while boarding the plane. He resisted removal
and was returned to the Removal Centre. He accused the guards
of beating him and spraying pepper in his face in the van. He
certainly had bruising and eye problems needing medical attention
over a number of days when returned to the Centre.[157]
121. Emma Cole, a postgraduate student who conducted
a research project looking at the treatment of families seeking
asylum, reported complaints of misconduct by removal staff. In
one example, she said:
The family had shown medical evidence to a pilot,
stating that the mother should not be made to fly due to her mental
illhealth. The pilot refused to take them. The family claim
that they were then assaulted by private security staff (employed
by the Immigration Service to conduct removals).[158]
122. Ms Nicola Rogers, of the Immigration Law Practitioners'
Association, claimed that "once a person is put on a plane
and they are successfully removed, the chances of them following
up a complaint against Wackenhut or against the Immigration Service
is nil".[159]
Mrs Sally Tarshish of the Association of Visitors to Immigration
Detainees told us that the system could be improved by the creation
of an external monitoring body to carry out checks on escorts
and removals, much as the statutory Visiting Committees scrutinise
conditions in Removal Centres.[160]
123. The allegations of mistreatment were robustly
challenged when we put them to Wackenhut and Loss Prevention International,
the firms responsible for escorting failed asylum seekers out
of the country. Mr Michael Payne of Wackenhut told us "the
number of complaints that are justified [ ... ] is really very,
very small; I would say less than five per year substantiated
complaints".[161]
124. We recommend that consideration be given
to extending the role of Visiting Committees to cover removals.
133 Ev 152, para 1.1 Back
134
Q 211 Back
135
Q 208 [Mr Davies]; The International Air Transport Association
is an organisation representing approximately 280 airlines around
the world, the flights of which comprise more than 95 percent
of all international scheduled air traffic. One of the functions
of the Association is to provide a channel through which governments
can liaise with airlines as a group to develop regulations, standards
and law (http://www.iata.org/index.htm). Back
136
Q 210 [Mr Davies] Back
137
Q 207 Back
138
Q 212 Back
139
Q 215 Back
140
Q 220 Back
141
Q 222 Back
142
Q 654 Back
143
The Immigration and Asylum Appeals (One-Stop Procedure) Regulations
2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2244) Back
144
Ev 97 Back
145
Ev 144, para 27 Back
146
Ev 127; Ev 166, para 3.17 Back
147
Ev 172, paras 2.2-2.3 Back
148
Ev 151, para 3.3 Back
149
Ev 172, para 2.4 Back
150
Ev 121 Back
151
Q252 Back
152
Ev 180 Back
153
Ev 181 Back
154
Ev 151, para 4.2 Back
155
Ev 172, para 2.6 Back
156
Q 669 Back
157
Ev 120-1 Back
158
Ev 130 Back
159
Q 560 Back
160
Ev 121 Back
161
Q 247 Back