No-notice removals

48. ‘No-notice removals’ is a term that was usually used to describe a three- month window given to detained people when, after an initial short period (of 72 hours, including two working days) during which there was no risk of removal, they could be removed from the UK with no further notice.¹ and Medical Justice v Secretary of State for Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1338, paras 2 and 36-39ii)) It was a deliberate element of this policy, which was in place from 2015 onwards, that details such as the time and date of the removal would not be given.² and Medical J ustice v Secretary of State for Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1338, paras 2 and 36-39ii)) In 2020, the Court of Appeal found the policy to be unlawful on the basis that it posed an “unacceptable risk of interference with the right of access to court”.³ and Medical Justice v Secretary of State for Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1338, paras 56, 170 and 193 ))
49. The use of this approach during the relevant period appears to have had a detrimental impact on detained people, increasing levels of uncertainty, fear and the use of force. Mr Alan Gibson, Head of Operations within the Home Office’s Detention and Escorting Services (DES), said that detained people would be told “a few hours” before they went.⁴ He added:

“G4S thought ‘No notice, that means we can’t tell them’ … the first thing the person knew when they were leaving was when the room door was opened and three officers in full personal protection kit stepped in and they were taking them down to reception. That was just a very grisly, unnecessary set of circumstances and failed communications.”⁵

Ms Clare Checksfield, Director of DES, accepted that the Home Office “collectively mishandled it very badly”.⁶

50. There were a number of effects of this policy at Brook House.

50.1 Distress and uncertainty for detained people: D1851 was subject to a no-notice removal in May 2017 that did not proceed but that he described as a “distressing and alarming experience”.⁷

50.2 Impact on relationships between staff and detained people: Mr Lee Hanford, Business Change Director during the relevant period, described the use of no-notice charters as “so detrimental to the relationships within the centre” because they undermined trust between detained people and staff, who were required to be evasive about when removal flights were to take place.⁸ Mr Hanford raised concerns about these issues at Brook House IMB meetings in late 2017.⁹ This led to the Brook House IMB flagging these issues in its 2017 report as an area of concern, saying that no-notice removals “can lead to inhumane treatment” and left “detainees in a limbo of uncertainty with the psychological stresses that brings”.¹⁰

50.3 Impact on use of force: Mr Hanford observed that no-notice removals were a “significant contributing factor to the number of uses of force we have observed”.¹¹ Mr Gordon Brockington, Managing Director of Justice and Government Chief Commercial Officer at G4S, agreed. He said that, as a result of no-notice removals, “a large number of both planned and unplanned use of force incidents became necessary to remove detainees from their cell and onto the HO [Home Office] escort vehicle”.¹² Mr Jonathan Collier, the Inquiry’s use of force expert, believed that the policy was also part of the reason for there being a large number of restraints of detained people who were naked or near-naked.¹³

51. The evidence suggests that the increase in stress and in the frequency of use of force against detained people caused by this policy adversely impacted their experience at Brook House during the relevant period. It is likely that no-notice removals contributed to conditions where ill treatment was more likely to occur.

1. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 10(1) as amended by section 1 of the Immigration Act 2014. See R (FB (Afghanistan[↩]
2. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 10(1) as amended by section 1 of the Immigration Act 2014. See R (FB (Afghanistan [↩]
3. See R (FB (Afghanistan[↩]
4. VER000264_016[↩]
5. VER000264_016 [↩]
6. VER000264_016 [↩]
7. DL0000143_008-009 paras 32 and 33[↩]
8. Lee Hanford 15 March 2022 85/1-87/10[↩]
9. IMB000025_002[↩]
10. VER000138_023 para 11.2[↩]
11. Lee Hanford 15 March 2022 87/7-8[↩]
12. CJS0074041_035 para 176[↩]
13. Jonathan Collier 30 March 2022 61/1-62/3[↩]