The
Home Office behave without thinking at the best of times but
increasingly they are stepping over lines that not only push moral
judgements to the limit but move into illegality. Arlette Johnson, an
Asylum Seeker with very limited mobility and movement, epilepsy (she has
collapsed twice at our centre), and recovering from breast cancer, went
to the Home Office in Liverpool to report in last week. During the
reporting visit she suffered an epileptic seizure. Knowing that she was
ill, the Home Office decided not to take her to hospital, not to send
for the paramedics, but to put her in a van and whisk her off to a
detention centre, Yarlswood in Bedfordshire; their plan from the outset.
This was an extremely vulnerable woman, suffering from multiple
illnesses and who should have had proper medical attention if not
hospital treatment. They are in breach of Detention Rule 35
Application of Detention Centre Rule 35
Introduction
1. The purpose of Rule 35, as set out in the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, is “to ensure that particularly vulnerable detainees are brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention. The information contained in the report needs to be
considered in deciding whether continued detention is appropriate in each case”
1. The Enforcement Instructions and Guidance continues “The following are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances, whether in immigration detention accommodation or prisons: …those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured”.
2. Sub-paragraphs (1) - (4) of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules are in place to ensure immigration removal centre (IRC) medical practitioners can report the likelihood a detainee‟s health will be injuriously affected by continued detention, a suspicion a detained person has suicidal intentions, or concern that a detained person may have been a victim of torture, to Home Office
responsible officers.
Even though the Home Office will argue that the reporting centre, despite having holding cells, does not qualify as a detention centre, they are obliged to keep to the spirit of the rule - so says the 'law'.
Arlette Johnson, with her multiple illnesses, should not have been detained. I am in no doubt that the detention brought on her seizure and that this adversely affected her health at the time and is at further risk of doing so again. However we should not be surprised by this particular tactic. The Home Office appear to be targeting, not the fit or able bodied, but the weak, vulnerable and mentally infirm. It is one of the least pleasing aspects of our society that one of our oldest institutions sees Arlette's illness, not as something worthy of care, but as an opportunity to get rid of her. Just another foreigner scrounging off the state, sweep her under the carpet, bend a few rules and stick her on a plane. Is this a mark of Great Britain at its best or the further erosion of our place in the world. I wonder what Arlette would say.
https://www.facebook.com/asylumlinkmerseyside/posts/573661109414788
Application of Detention Centre Rule 35
Introduction
1. The purpose of Rule 35, as set out in the Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, is “to ensure that particularly vulnerable detainees are brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention. The information contained in the report needs to be
considered in deciding whether continued detention is appropriate in each case”
1. The Enforcement Instructions and Guidance continues “The following are normally considered suitable for detention in only very exceptional circumstances, whether in immigration detention accommodation or prisons: …those where there is independent evidence that they have been tortured”.
2. Sub-paragraphs (1) - (4) of Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules are in place to ensure immigration removal centre (IRC) medical practitioners can report the likelihood a detainee‟s health will be injuriously affected by continued detention, a suspicion a detained person has suicidal intentions, or concern that a detained person may have been a victim of torture, to Home Office
responsible officers.
Even though the Home Office will argue that the reporting centre, despite having holding cells, does not qualify as a detention centre, they are obliged to keep to the spirit of the rule - so says the 'law'.
Arlette Johnson, with her multiple illnesses, should not have been detained. I am in no doubt that the detention brought on her seizure and that this adversely affected her health at the time and is at further risk of doing so again. However we should not be surprised by this particular tactic. The Home Office appear to be targeting, not the fit or able bodied, but the weak, vulnerable and mentally infirm. It is one of the least pleasing aspects of our society that one of our oldest institutions sees Arlette's illness, not as something worthy of care, but as an opportunity to get rid of her. Just another foreigner scrounging off the state, sweep her under the carpet, bend a few rules and stick her on a plane. Is this a mark of Great Britain at its best or the further erosion of our place in the world. I wonder what Arlette would say.
https://www.facebook.com/asylumlinkmerseyside/posts/573661109414788
No comments:
Post a Comment