The Independent Monitoring Boards (IMB) has published a report on
the use of force against people in immigration detention. The
report is available on our website.
IMBs' findings reveal a troubling pattern of force being applied
inconsistently, disproportionately, and without adequate
justification, often undermining the dignity and welfare of
highly vulnerable individuals.
The report highlights how routine handcuffing, particularly
during hospital transfers, appears to have become the default
rather than the exception – indeed, Gatwick IMB found that nearly
100% of detained individuals taken to hospital appointments were
restrained. In one case, a frail 70-year-old man was handcuffed
despite paperwork noting no evidence of risk, yet the duty
director's approval cited risk on escort, raising serious
questions about the oversight of risk assessments.
The IMB National Chair, Elisabeth Davies, has written to the Home
Office raising concerns about the volume of handcuffing and the
lack of clear justification provided. The outcome of the promised
Home Office review of handcuff usage and risk assessment
procedures is keenly awaited. Meanwhile, IMBs continue to observe
blanket approaches to handcuffing and inconsistent justifications
for its usage.
Key findings include:
-
Inconsistent application of restraint:
Practices vary between facilities run by Home Office
contractors, with some decisions appearing to be influenced by
operational convenience or local preferences rather than
individual risk.
At Luton Airport, the IMB was informed that detained
individuals are routinely handcuffed when being escorted to
removal flights due to authorities expressing this as a
preference, a factor that the IMB believes should have no bearing
on the decision to use restraint. In contrast, at Manchester and
Birmingham airports, the decision is left to contracted escort
staff. At Manchester's Dallas Court reporting centre, men are
routinely restrained, but women are not.
-
Missed opportunities for de-escalation:
Language barriers and a failure to use interpretation services
may have led to the unnecessary use of force, with many
individuals left unable to understand what is happening.
In one case, force was used against a detained person
who did not stand when asked. Had translation services been used
this may have negated the need for any use of force, as what was
perceived as non-compliance may have simply been a lack of
understanding.
-
No evidence of a trauma-informed approach:
Despite many detained people having experienced trauma,
including torture and trafficking, IMBs found nothing to
indicate that this was being considered when planning or
executing force interventions.
A man with mental health difficulties had a
Vulnerable Adult Care Plan in place, but officers failed to
follow the guidance included on how to support him. As a result,
he became distressed and force was used against
him.
-
Concerning staff attitudes and organisational
culture: Some staff and trainers demonstrated a
disregard for proportionality and accountability, with reports
of coercive practices and inappropriate comments during
training.
A personal protection trainer told officers, “If
someone's coming at me, I'm going to keep myself safe. I don't
worry about what's proportionate, I won't worry about Serco or my
job, my priority is to look after myself”.
-
Significant gaps in the recording of force:
IMBs identified incomplete documentation, inaccurate records,
and ineffective review processes, raising concerns about
governance and accountability.
A man was subjected to multiple restraints, including
rigid bar cuffs, a waist-restraint belt, and thigh and ankle
restraints for over four and a half hours, and was twice carried
by a four-person team. Yet the documentation omitted key
information, including any evidence that the individual had
failed to comply despite this being the justification given to
the IMB for the continued use of restraints.
