Ongoing Criticisms and Developments
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Last updated
Was this helpful?
Stephen Shaw was commissioned by the Home Office to undertake a follow-up review, which was published on 24th July 2018 and is available here: . This was a process he informally referred to as ‘marking the Home Office’s homework’ but the stated purpose of the second review was to consider the extent to which the Home Office had adopted the recommendations included in his first report and to assess what impact this had in practice.
This second review included detailed evidence from NGOs working in detention or with detained people about the introduction of AAR which was summarised as “almost all of the interested parties making submissions to this review expressed concerns that the aims of AAR had not been realised in practice. Many argued that the previous policy … represented a stronger safeguard.”
AVID submitted evidence to Stephen Shaw which was quoted in the review. Our concerns were that the new policy had not achieved its aim of reducing the number of vulnerable people identified in detention or the length of their incarceration. In fact, the new approach placed a greater evidence burden on people detained to demonstrate their vulnerability as well as giving greater weight to immigration factors to provide justification of their detention:
“The new Adults at Risk (AAR) policy increases the burden of evidence on vulnerable people and balances vulnerability against a wide range of immigration factors. We, like other NGOs, are concerned that this leads to more vulnerable people being detained for longer... Unlike previous policy guidance, the new policy introduces the concept of ‘balancing’ or weighing up vulnerability factors to be carried out by those making the decision to detain… This is then weighted against immigration factors, such as length of detention, public protection issues and compliance issues, or a late asylum claim. It is important to note that a late asylum claim or other poor ‘immigration factor’ related to immigration history may be directly related to, or a consequence of, someone’s vulnerability, the experience of trauma, or the mental ill health they experience. There is no requirement for the decision maker to provide evidence that this detention may be injurious to health of the person being detained: the burden of proof falls disproportionately on the person being considered for detention. Imposing an additional evidential burden in this way is inconsistent with the objective to reduce the numbers of vulnerable people detained; we are worried that it is leading to more vulnerable people being detained for longer, because they cannot provide adequate ‘evidence’...” (AVID)
In his second review, Stephen Shaw recommended a more nuanced approach to assessing the level of risk contained in AAR. He also made recommendations about the wording of some categories of groups of people. He identified continued concerns about the operation of Rule 35 healthcare assessments and recommended that AAR should have greater openness and external scrutiny. This led to a formal recommendation that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICBI) should be invited to report annually to the Home Secretary on the working of operation of the policy. The Home Office did not accept all of the recommendations but did accept the need for annual review of the policy. Overall, Stephen Shaw stated that AAR represented a “cultural change” and so needed time to reach fruition. His view then was it was a work in progress.
The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICBI) is an organisation, which is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the immigration, asylum, nationality and customs function of the Home Office. The organisation also has a democratic function as its reports are laid before Parliament. It is set up to look at systemic issues, rather than investigate individual cases. More information about the Chief Inspector’s role and work is available on the ICBI .
The ICBI has undertaken several reports specifically concerning AAR:
First report published April 2020:
Second report published October 2021
Third report published January 2023:
These reports share common themes concerning the operation of AAR. They can be broadly summarised as concerns about the lack of robustness of Home Office data concerning its use of detention powers and particularly the operation of AAR, problems of access to quality medical assessments prior to and throughout detention that would support AAR to operate effectively, and criticism of the process, reasoning and evidence behind decisions to detain vulnerable people at all stages of the detention process. A further recurrent issue was a culture of disbelief within the Home Office and that notions of vulnerability were exploited by detained people and those supporting them to undermine immigration removal processes.
Regrettably, in January 2023 Suella Braverman, at the time the Home Secretary, ended the commission of annual inspections by the ICBI to review AAR. This was subsequently addressed by David Neal the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration at the time in a letter published by the Guardian in September 2023: . He expressed frustration at the lack of engagement by the Home Office with his previous reports and the “defensiveness” of the organisation. He advised the then Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick that “the system – specifically the mechanism through which medical staff at immigration removal centres can bring vulnerability concerns to the attention of Home Office officials effectively – was not working” and the response was to terminate annual inspections.
The report found serious safeguarding failings at Brook House IRC and the Chair of the Inquiry – Kate Eves - found 19 incidents, in the short period of five months when the undercover footage was recorded, in which there was credible evidence of acts or omissions that were capable of amounting to mistreatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR[1]. Safeguarding failings included poor quality medical assessments, poor record-keeping, a lack of understanding amongst healthcare staff of their safeguarding obligations and inadequate Home Office practice when considering detention. The Chair concluded that AAR was disconnected from other safeguarding processes and that detained people experiencing suicidal feelings and self-harm were allowed to deteriorate.
“There was no recognition that a holistic view needed to be taken in relation to self-harm and suicide risk, and that the various processes should be complementary. This undoubtedly exposed vulnerable people to a risk of harm and, in some cases, caused actual harm to be suffered. I remain gravely concerned about the dysfunction in the operation of these layers of safeguards. Based on the evidence I have seen throughout this Inquiry, vulnerable people in detention are not being afforded the appropriate protections that these safeguards are designed to provide.” (Kate Eves)
In 2019 two parliamentary committees published reports that included trenchant conclusions concerning AAR.
“The Adults at Risk policy does not give adequate protection to individuals at risk of harm in detention either by way of policy or practice… More needs to be done to identify vulnerable detainees and treat them appropriately.”
“The Adults at Risk (AAR) policy is clearly not protecting the vulnerable people that it was introduced to protect. Instead, by introducing three levels of evidence of risk which are then weighed against a broad range of immigration factors, the policy has increased the burden on vulnerable people to evidence the risk of harm that might render them particularly vulnerable if they were placed or remained in detention... We are concerned that the AAR policy is not only failing to protect vulnerable people but, by introducing a requirement for individuals to provide evidence of the level of their vulnerability risk in detention, has significantly lowered the threshold for Home Office caseworkers to maintain detention of those most at risk.”
There have been various reports from organisations and NGOs working with people in immigration detention and with direct experience of the operation of AAR, adding to the extensive evidence of the flaws with this policy.
[1] Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights applies where a state has subjected individuals to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment and is a key means of protecting human dignity. Any suggestion of a breach represents one of the most serious findings against a state.
The Brook House Public Inquiry was set up in the wake of footage obtained by an undercover journalist (then a G4S custody officer) between 1 April 2017 and 31 August 2017 showing violence and abuse against detained people held at Brook House IRC and disturbing treatment of overtly vulnerable people. Live evidence was heard in public in hearings held between November 2021 and April 2022 to examine both the circumstances in 2017 as well as current practice in detention. The report was published on 19 September 2023 and is available at:
published January 2019
report published March 2019
, a research project completed by Women for Refugee Women published in 2017, one year after the introduction of AAR identified the flaws in the policy that were subsequently confirmed by the ICBI and the Brook House Public Inquiry. In their research Women for Refugee Women interviewed 26 survivors of sexual and gender-based violence and found these individuals were subject to detention despite their history of trauma, experience of mental illness and the fact that their mental state had deteriorated in detention. The data in the report also included information that the women they interviewed had been detained for significant periods of time, with difficulty in accessing the medical evidence needed for AAR to take effect. Even where such evidence was available, this did not result in their release from detention.
Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) completed an of AAR published in 2018. This involved an analysis of 30 of their casework files which included an indicator of vulnerability that should have triggered application of AAR. The data showed a failure to collect information on indicators of risk before detention, with subsequent processes undertaken after the individual had been detained also failing to collate evidence of vulnerability. These two issues meant that AAR was not effective. There was also evidence that Home Office decision making did not take account of changes in risk over time and instead prioritised immigration factors to justify detention.
undertaken by the University of London, School of African and Oriental Studies and published in the journal Migration Studies in 2020: ‘What Are We Afraid Of? Exploring Risk and Immigration Detention” (Lindley) also addressed AAR. This analysed both Home Office published data, wider research articles and interviews with 20 lawyers and NGO staff familiar with the safeguarding processes from working with people in immigration detention. This again found Home Office decisionmakers prioritising immigration issues to justify detention with detained people struggling to access evidence of their vulnerability: “Immigration officers doggedly insist on reasonable removability, the core rationale for detention, often in the face of substantial legal and logistical obstacles. Concerns arise in relation to low standards of evidence used to support claims about immigration control risks. This contrasts with a demanding approach to evidence of individual vulnerability to harm in detention, and a system still poorly equipped to assess this effectively.”
Medical Justice have published numerous reports on the failures of the Adults at Risk policy. One such report in 2022: concluded that whilst AAR purported “to offer more protection to vulnerable people, it instead set up a complex new system which permitted greater scope for Home Office caseworkers to justify the continued the detention of those at risk.” The report analysed 45 examples of people with independent medico-legal reports completed by clinicians working with the charity to assess the effect of detention on people detained between July and December 2021. The research identified ineffective healthcare assessments and other inadequate safeguarding processes which undermined access to the evidence needed to ensure AAR could properly operate.
Stephen Shaw undertook a role as Chair of an Advisory Panel to the Home Office established in 2019. His first was completed in March 2022, but published by the department some years later in January 2025. The Panel’s role was internally focussed: to provide an overall steer on the research direction, to shape future evaluation priorities, provide guidance and advice on evaluation issues and provide a first opportunity for the Home Office to share and scrutinise emerging internal findings. The published report acknowledges some significant methodological limitations in terms of its inability to scrutinise the quality of the Home Office’s internal data but made some broadly positive findings about the operation of AAR. The only external element of the report comprised university research access to administer a questionnaire addressing issues of quality of life in detention.
A summary of the external researchers’ conclusions is available here: . This indicated “…detainees exhibited high levels of vulnerability and distress… Notwithstanding the Adults at Risk policy, detainees report experiences of victimisation including torture, domestic violence, rape, trafficking and other traumatic events…… the duration of a person’s detention significantly affects their well-being, with scores showing levels of distress increase the longer people are in detention, raising questions about case management and how detention could be limited in duration.”
