Harm on Removal

Harm on Removal: Excessive Force against
Failed Asylum Seekers
Executive Summary

Over a period of 15 weeks (19 April - 30 th July 2004), 14 individuals who claimed they had been subjected to the excessive or gratuitous use of force during an attempt to remove them from the UK were examined by a doctor who either currently works at, or has worked for, the Medical Foundation in the past. All 14 of the individuals had originally claimed asylum in the UK, and their claims had been unsuccessful. They were all held in one of four identified detention facilities prior to the removal attempt. In all 14 cases, doctors prepared a medical report containing their assessment of the consistency between the individual's account of the treatment suffered and the injuries noted on examination. These reports were examined collectively, and the findings form the basis of this study.

The cases reveal worrying incidences of harm, which in turn suggest certain practices of abuse, with four patterns emerging: (i) the use of inappropriate and unsafe methods of force which carry higher than acceptable injury risk; (ii) the use of force even after termination of the removal attempt, often out of sight inside escort vehicles; (iii) continued use of force even after the detainee had been restrained; and (iv) the misuse of handcuffing, which would appear to be deliberate in some cases. Although our sample is small, the patterns that emerge are repeated in many of the cases, raising concern that there may be a systemic problem of abuse, rather than a number of isolated incidents.

Analysis of the cases suggests that excessive or gratuitous force was used during the removal attempt of 12 out of the 14 individuals examined. In all 12 cases, medical evidence supports the detainee's allegations of the injury method. In the other 2 cases, although medical evidence reveals the presence of some injuries, it is difficult to state with any degree of certainty whether or not the force employed was disproportionate. The final judgement in all 14 cases would, of course, rest with the Courts.

The use of excessive force against individuals who are in the custody of the State will automatically raise issues under human rights provisions for both the State and the private security company involved in the actual abuse. In addition, the abuse will almost certainly constitute an assault, leaving perpetrators subject to criminal prosecution or civil action.

The Medical Foundation is extremely concerned by the findings of this study, and strongly recommends that an automatic medical examination take place of any individual who is the subject of a failed removal attempt. In addition, it is vital if this practice is to be eradicated that malpractice is reported, and perpetrators investigated and prosecuted where appropriate. To this end, it is essential that the victim of the assault, together with any witnesses, be permitted to remain in the UK in order to pursue any legal course of action. It is essential that those involved in the physical removal of failed asylum seekers receive comprehensive training in the proper use of restraint techniques.