57. Twelfth supplementary memorandum
submitted by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home
Office
DEPORTATION OF FOREIGN NATIONAL PRISONERS: MOST ACCURATE
AVAILABLE DATA
INTRODUCTION
1. In my letter of 9 June, I confirmed that
I had agreed with you that I would provide the most accurate available
data by the end of June. This note fulfils that agreement.
2. Information about those foreign national
prisoners who were released without due consideration of deportation
having been made was given most recently in the Home Secretary's
Written Ministerial Statement of 23 May 2006. In a further Written
Ministerial Statement of 25 May, the Home Secretary explained
that the information given about the numbers in prison was wrong
because, in a number of cases, bail had been granted. The Home
Secretary said that he had asked the Department to recheck all
of the figures provided to the House in his statement of 23 May.
3. All of the figures have now been rechecked.
But it remains important that the nature of the information is
understood. For the following reasons, the information that I
can provide is the latest, most accurate data available, but it
will inevitably be subject to a margin of error. These reasons
include:
— the fact that we have been relying on
historic, largely paper based, data systems;
— the absence of a unique identifying number
for offenders, which the Home Secretary has already identified
as a priority for action, and which, in the meantime, has severely
hampered the process of accurately collecting and collating data;
— the fact that the data will always be
a snapshot of a moving picture as decisions are taken and progress
is made;
— the continuing work done with the police
and with the prison and probation services and with other agencies
has built up a fuller picture of the cases, in so doing identifying
inaccuracies in the information originally available.
The deficiencies in our systems in terms of
their ability to produce accurate information enabling us to meet
the challenges we face, is a key aspect of the review of IND and
the wider review of the Home Office now underway.
4. We have sought to be open with the Committee
about the position on foreign national prisoners, including sharing
a definition of the more and most serious crimes that we have
developed in order to prioritise operations. The Home Secretary
explained in his statement of 15 May an extension to the definition
of serious offences to include all cases where there has been
any conviction for offences involving violence, including armed
robbery, or a sexual element. In fact, as we have looked at the
information available, and as that information has grown, we have
re-categorised a number of the cases.
MOST ACCURATE
AVAILABLE DATA
5. Subject to these important caveats, the
position is as follows.
Summary of the 1,019 now 1,013 cases
6. The Home Secretary's Written Ministerial
Statement of 23 May gave a breakdown of the 1019 cases previously
reported to Parliament. As a result of further analysis of these
cases, this figure reduces to 1013: this is because 6 of the
cases have been identified as duplicates, for example where the
individual has used aliases.
7. These cases had been reported because
the prisoner had been released without due consideration of deportation.
Rounded to the nearest five, the figures are as follows:
— 920 of the cases have now been considered
for deportation.
— In 885 of these cases, a decision has
been taken either to proceed with deportation or not to pursue
deportation. These decisions break down as follows:
— 705 decisions to pursue deportation;
and
— 180 decisions not to pursue deportation.
— In the remaining 35 of the 920 cases,
having considered the case, the decision has been not to proceed
with deportation at present because, for example, the prisoner
is on remand, or the prisoner still has some time to run on his
sentence: following the judgement in the Chindamo case, we do
not make a substantive decision until 12 to 18 months before release.
— The remaining cases beyond the 920 cases
are in the process of being fully assessed.
8. These figures mean that the failure to
consider deportation has been put right in over 90% of the cases.
Work is continuing to take decisions in the remaining cases, bearing
in mind the point made above in relation to the Chindamo case.
9. In 239 of the 1,013 cases, the individual
is currently detained either in prison or in the immigration detention
estate. A further 55 have been bailed by the courts.
10. Achieving deportation (or removal) is
a complex process. The rate of progress is inhibited by some internal
IND processes, for example the training of the additional staff
in deportation work, but also by some external and practical considerations:
these include the requirement to secure the relevant foreign
passport or document from their Government, for the individual,
so that they may be returned to the appropriate country. The process
also includes legal and statutory procedures, including an appeal
against deportation. For these reasons, it takes around six months,
and in many cases significantly longer than that, to complete
the end to end process of deportation.
11. In the two months since the then Home
Secretary's announcement of the failure to consider deportation
in these cases, our records show that actual deportation (or removal)
has occurred in a total of 46 of the cases. For the reasons given,
this is only the beginning of the process. The number of those
deported or removed will increase as the internal processes are
speeded up, the practical considerations affecting deportation
are tackled, and as the statutory processes are completed.
More and most serious cases
12. Within the 1013 cases, 189 are now categorised
as meeting our definition of those offenders who had been convicted
of the more and most serious offences. The most serious category
comprises murder, manslaughter, rape and child sex offences. The
more serious category comprises other sex offences, kidnapping,
violent crime including armed robbery, ABH/GBH and indecent assault.
The 189 cases break down as follows:
43 in the most serious category; and
146 in the more serious category.
Of the 189 more and most serious cases, decisions
to pursue deportation have been taken in 137 of these cases. A
decision not to deport has been taken in 28 of these cases. A
final decision has yet to be taken in the other 24 cases, but
it should be noted that in 13 of these cases the individual is
in detention.
Detention of the more and most serious cases
13. As noted above, a decision not to deport
has been taken in 28 of the more and most serious cases. 68 of
the individuals in the more and most serious category are in detention
and 15 have been bailed. four have been removed or deported.
14. Of the 43 cases in the most serious
category, 25 of the individuals are detained, five have been bailed,
and one has been removed. In five of the 43 cases, a decision
has been taken not to pursue deportation: in one of these five
cases, the individual is now known to be dead. This leaves seven
cases in the most serious category where the individual is not
detained, and has not been bailed or removed. The seven cases
include one case where the individual is believed to be out of
the country and has been reported to have died. These cases remain
a high priority and urgent work continues to locate and deal with
these offenders.
Re-offences committed by the more and most serious
offenders
15. The Home Secretary's Written Ministerial
Statement of 23 May also gave information about cases where it
appeared that the "more and most serious" offenders
had re-offended since release. We have now identified 48 of the
more and most serious offenders who have been reconvicted of offences
since release. In 16 of these cases, the reconviction is, itself,
for an offence that is within the more serious category. This
compares with a figure of 13 cases involving 11 reconvictions
given in the Home Secretary's statement on 23 May.
16. In one case of an individual in the
more and most serious category, it is now clear that the re-offence
involves a life sentence for murder and other offences: from
our assessment of this case it appears that the individual convicted
of the offences could not have been deported, whenever the consideration
of deportation had taken place, because of the provision in section
7(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 which exempts from deportation
Commonwealth and Irish citizens who were Commonwealth and Irish
citizens and resident in the UK in January 1973 and have been
ordinarily resident in the UK for at least five years before the
decision to make a deportation order. In this case, the individual
has been in the country for well over 30 years, and has a long
history of offending. The Home Secretary has asked the Department
to review this legal provision alongside the eight priority areas
for change which were identified in his statement.
Bail by the courts
17. The available information, reflecting
decisions taken by the independent immigration appeal Tribunal,
is given in the table below:
|
| Category | Granted
| Refused | Withdrawn/Adjourned
|
|
| Most | 5 |
1 | 0
|
| More | 10 |
8 | 2
|
| Other | 40
| 22 | 9
|
| Total | 55
| 31 | 11
|
|
| This information changes daily |
SCOTLAND AND
NORTHERN IRELAND,
AND MENTALLY
DISORDERED OFFENDERS
18. The Committee has asked about the figures for Scotland
and Northern Ireland, and for mentally disordered offenders. The
Home Secretary's Written Ministerial Statement of 23 May 2006
identified Scotland and Northern Ireland, and mentally disordered
offenders as two of the eight priority areas for change. Progress
is being made on the eight priority areas and we expect this will
be reported shortly.
INVESTIGATION INTO
ERRORS IN
EARLIER FIGURES
19. I would like to apologise, again, for the incorrect
information that we gave to the Home Secretary and which was included
in his Written Ministerial Statement of 23 May.
20. The Home Secretary explained that an investigation
was being carried out to establish how this had happened. This
investigation has now been completed. The investigating officer
has concluded that there were significant systemic failures and
generally insufficient management information systems and data
to ensure the provision of up to date and accurate information
and that there was a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities
in the crisis. For these reasons, the report concludes that there
are not grounds for disciplinary action in connection with this
investigation. By the same token, and at the same time, it identified
a number of issues which we must address. In particular, there
is a key issue about senior officials working and thinking in
a joined up and accountable way, and having the confidence, capacity
and systems to do so. Performance management obligations, particularly
for senior people, must encompass all our duties as a team and
not be limited to the immediate task in hand. All of these issues
are being scrutinised in our plans for reform.
21. I intend that IND should become an organisation that
can be held more clearly accountable and that is fully adept at
interrogating and using management information and then utilising
it to deliver for the public and to make continuous performance
improvements. Achieving the necessary breadth and depth of management
capability and responsibility will be a focus within the current
fundamental review of IND.
Lin Homer
Director General
29 June 2006
| 
