Response consultation on the transfer immigration detainees

MARCH 2004

INTRODUCTION

Law Centre (NI) is a voluntary organisation providing legal and other support services including training, publications and information to 83 full time members and 350 associate members.  Full time members consist of local CAB and independent advice agencies and other voluntary organisations who provide advice as part of their overall function.  Associate members includes solicitors, trade unions, political parties, probation and social services offices and community based organisations including tenants associations.  The Law Centre provides an advice line and casework service on referral to its members in the areas of social security, social services, immigration, housing and employment law.

The Law Centre deals with around 4,500 enquiries a year.  Immigration advice forms a large part of this work accounting for a quarter of all advice calls in 2002/2003.  Representation is also provided in asylum appeals and bail applications for immigration detainees.  In 2002/2003, the Law Centre represented applicants in over half of all such appeals heard by the Immigration Adjudicator.

The Refugee Action Group is an umbrella organisation which seeks to provide practical support and assistance to refugees and to inform the public about issues affecting refugees.  The Refugee Action Group (RAG) has published ‘Forced to Flee’, an information pack for the media and also ‘A Place of Refuge’, a needs assessment of asylum seekers and refugees in Northern Ireland.  RAG members include Amnesty International, the Law Centre, Multi-Cultural Resource Centre, Democratic Dialogue, NIACRO the One World Centre, Save the Children, Embrace, the Black Youth Network, Child Care (NI) and the Islamic Centre.

The long-standing campaign has been informed by research undertaken by the Law Centre, the experience of casework staff in providing representation for those detained in Maghaberry and the lobbying work on this issue undertaken by the Refugee Action Group.

SUBMISSION

The decisions taken by immigration officers to detain asylum seekers are arbitrary, inconsistent, often capricious and, on a number of occasions, ignore international and domestic human rights norms.  Guidelines issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees permit detention in four narrow sets of circumstances only:  to verify identity, to determine the basis of the asylum claim where the asylum seeker has attempted to deceive the immigration authorities by destroying travel documents or using fraudulent documents, to protect national security or public order.  Detention should always be for the shortest possible period. These guidelines are currently not being followed.

In ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’ (2000) [1], the Law Centre examined the international standards applicable to conditions of detention in detail including the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988), the

European Prison Rules (1987), and recommendations by the UNHCR, UN Committee Against Torture, the European Committee for the Protection of Torture and others.  These conclude that in no circumstances should asylum seekers be held with convicted prisoners. 

The report made a large number of recommendations including that a non-custodial alternative to detention should be developed as a matter of urgency.

The call for an end to the use of prison for immigration detention has been endorsed by a large number of organisations.  The Human Rights Commission, Equality Commission, the current HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and her predecessor and Amnesty International have all called for an end to the use of prison for such purposes. [2]  Moreover, in February 2001, the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously passed a motion supporting the recommendations contained in ‘Sanctuary in a Cell’.  An up-date of Sanctuary in a Cell published in July 2003 revealed that 60-70 people continue to be held each year in Maghaberry.  Only one of the 33 recommendations contained in the original research had been met. [3]

More recently, in August 2003, the Steele report on safety at Maghaberry recommended that ‘urgent steps are taken to deal with (immigration detainees) outside the prison system’. [4]  The report led to the House of Commons, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to examine the separation of paramilitary prisoners at HMP Maghaberry.  Its report issued in January 2004 had sight of the current document issued by the Northern Ireland Prison Service and concluded that:

144.  The Government has also issued a consultation paper on the accommodation for male immigration detainees.  This small group (at the time of the consultation, four individuals from a variety of backgrounds) are currently co-located with the female prisoners in Mourne House.  The suggestion is that if the female prisoners are moved they should also be moved, to provide urgently needed reserve accommodation within Maghaberry for other groups.

145.   The consultation paper states that Steele’s recommendation – that detainees should be dealt with outside the prison system – is “not currently an option”. It therefore suggests three alternatives for their accommodation within the prison system:

n Removal of the detainees to another small but discrete accommodation unit within HMP Maghaberry (the committal unit);

n Full integration of the detainees with the (ordinary) prisoner population at HMP Maghaberry;  or

n Transfer of the detainees to HMP Magilligan, currently housing medium and low risk convicted prisoners facing only a short time in prison.

146.   These detainees are not serving sentences as punishment for crimes committed, and in other parts of the UK would not be treated as such.  Ultimately, the handling of these individuals comes down to the availability of resources:  it is clear that their number is so small that the Government considers special provision in Northern Ireland to be uneconomic.  Yet each detainee has rights as an individual, such as the right under the European Convention on Human Rights to freedom of association.  If the numbers of detainees were to dwindle further to one or two, the  the Government would effectively be holding them  in solitary confinement.  It is very difficult for the  Government to meet all of the competing requirements of human rights law while keeping these individuals within a prison environment.

147.   We endorse the recommendation of the Steele Review, and other witnesses to our inquiry, that immigration detainees should be dealt with outside the prison system.  We are disappointed that the Government for the moment appears to have rejected this important recommendation.  All of the options presented by the Government as alternatives raise concerns for the wellbeing of the individuals concerned. Accommodation in the committal unit would be isolated  with limited facilities.  But both of the other options would immerse these individuals within a population  of convicted criminals. If that is considered to be ill-advised for those on remand, it surely must be equally so in this case.

148.   We cannot endorse any of the Government’s  proposals for the continued retention of immigration detainees within Northern Ireland’s prisons.  It would be wholly wrong to integrate them into the prisoner population at HMP Maghaberry;  the other options each have drawbacks.  We urge the Government to reconsider whether further options may be available’. [5]

Further, in February 2004 the Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland issued a report which called for an end to using prison as a place for immigration detention. [6]  A similar call has also been made by the Church of Ireland, Methodist Church and Catholic Church. [7]

In light of the overwhelming evidence against use of prison for immigration detention and the comments of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee one is left wondering why a document failing to address alternatives to prison has been issued. 

While the Home Office is responsible for immigration matters it relies on the Prison Service to provide secure facilities for detention.  In 2000 the Home Office conducted a review of immigration detention in Northern Ireland.  The review did not consult with refugee groups or other voluntary organisations though it did entail substantial discussions with the Prison Service.  The review’s findings and outcomes have never been published.

The Prison Service should take responsibility for its role in this matter and lobby the Home Office vigorously to enable the development of non-custodial alternatives to prison.  A recent conference organised by the Refugee Action Group led to a number of alternatives being put forward including the use of bail hostels, utilisation of housing association reserves, to build or adapt accommodation, a review of existing government and public authority property to look at adaptation and the development of multi-purpose built accommodation that can function as both a secure and non-secure facility.  A Northern Ireland government body should lead the search for alternatives and, in our view, the Northern Ireland Office and Prison Service should take a lead in this matter. 

The Law Centre and Refugee Action Group therefore reject the narrow remit taken by the consultation document.  Nonetheless, we will comment briefly on the options put forward in the document.

The consultation document acknowledges that all of the options put forward have disadvantages.  We understand that consideration is currently being given to retaining Mourne House for both male and female immigration detainees and women prisoners rather than transferring women prisoners and detainees to Hydebank Wood.

Assuming, however, that the planned move of women detainees and prisoners goes ahead we believe that integration of detainees within Maghaberry is inadvisable.  In 2002, people detained were moved into the secure unit of the main prison following the suicide of a loyalist prisoner held in solitary confinement in a separate wing from detainees in Mourne House.  During this temporary move those detained were subjected to verbal abuse and other unacceptable behaviour from prison staff.  It is therefore difficult to envisage a policy of integration with other prisoners working in practice.  Moreover, such an arrangement further reinforces the criminalisation of asylum seekers and others detained.  The principle that those detained have committed no criminal offence and should not be subject to normal prison regime and rules would be further eroded. 

A move to Magilligan would be a further retrograde step as those detained were moved from Magilligan to Maghaberry in order to offer closer contact to family, friends and support services.

In the short term, our view is that immigration detainees (male and female) should be housed in the same accommodation.  In practice, we believe a transfer of all detainees to Hydebank Wood – a more relaxed prison service facility would be preferable.  Such a transfer would be short term and temporary pending the urgent and belated development of non-custodial alternatives.

Finally, we are disappointed that the consultation document does not address in detail the specific needs of immigration detainees, including provision of written information in a number of languages for those who speak little or not English, access to independent translators and interpreters, availability of appropriate educational and recreational facilities, the meeting of cultural, dietary and religious needs and race and cultural awareness training for staff working with immigration detainees.  While some progress has been made on these issues a great deal still needs to be done to improve the conditions facing immigration detainees committed to prison.  The consultation document should have set out how the options outlined will fully address these matters.