Adults at Risk Policy and Rule 35/Rule 32
Detention Centre Rule 35 and Short-Term Holding Facility Rule 32 ‘Special illnesses and conditions (including torture claims), set out a mechanism designed to ensure that the Home Office ‘responsible officer’ making detention decisions is aware if, at any point, a detained persons health is considered likely to be adversely affected by continued detention or any condition of detention. The healthcare teams in RSTHFs and IRCs are required to report concerns to the centre manager who should, in turn, report these to the Home Office. The duty is then with the Home Office to review the detention of the individual in line with the Adults at Risk Policy (AAR).
Every aspect of the operation of Rule 35 and the AAR, from the identification of vulnerabilities - to the quality of reports - to vulnerabilities being appropriately responded to, have been subject to criticism since its introduction.
In one report by Medical Justice – Harmed Not Heard (2022) – they identified 45 people at risk of harm. Of those, Medical Justice found that 82% had experienced a deterioration in their mental health as a consequence of their continued detention and 87% expressed suicidal thoughts. However, none of these people had the equivalent Rule 35 reports [1].
There have been ongoing failures of the process to identify people detained who have been subject to torture and - crucially - once identified for them to be released by the Home Office. In a report by Women for Refugee Women We Are Still Here (2017), they found that [2]:
“Survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are being detained before any attempt has been made to find out about their previous experiences and assess if they are vulnerable.
They aren’t believed when they disclose their experiences, and it is difficult for them to obtain evidence the Home Office will accept.
Even when they obtain evidence the Home Office accepts, survivors are being kept in detention.
Even when their mental and physical health are clearly deteriorating, survivors are being kept in detention.”
There is little – if any - written evidence on the implementation of Rule 32 in Short-Term Holding Facilities. Anecdotally, visitor groups to RSTHFs report that they rarely, if ever, see it being used within these facilities.
The Brook House Inquiry into the revelations of abuse, mistreatment and systemic racism in Brook House in 2017, found serious failings in the application of Rule 34 and Rule 35. Where Rule 35 reports were completed, the quality was found to be generally poor. Dr James Hard, the Inquiry’s medical expert, considered that around 75% of Rule 35(3) reports he examined were inadequately completed. In particular, he noted that there was either no conclusion regarding the possibility of previous ill treatment being torture, or no conclusion on the impact of ongoing detention. The Brook House Inquiry also made a recommendation that for a review of Rule 35 to be undertaken so that all three parts are followed, operate effectively and are properly resourced;
The Home Office has been highly reluctant to improve any aspect of this process, despite criticism from inspectorates, parliamentarians, research, litigation, and evidence over many years. Tellingly, in 2023, the Home Secretary terminated its contract with the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI) to monitor the Adults at Risk Policy. In the third and final report report the ICBI Chief Inspector states:
"My concern then was that the pace of change was too slow and the enthusiasm to protect vulnerable people in immigration detention was held back by a narrative that placed abuse of the system ahead of protecting the vulnerable. It is disappointing to see that little has changed." (David Neal, 2023 ICIBI report)
Further, the report highlights contextual issues which exacerbated longstanding problems including the flight to Rwanda in 2022 which led to excessive pressure on Rule 35 reports [3].
Last updated
