Demonstrators’ call for Campsfield to be closed 10 years after Home Secretary announced centre’s closure

Campaigners calling for the closure of Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre near Kidlington will demonstrate outside the main gates off Langford Lane at 12 noon on Saturday 28 January.

Spokesperson Bill MacKeith said:
‘In 2002, the Home Secretary announced that he would close Campsfield because it was ‘not fit for the 21st century’. He reversed that announcement after the 14 February 2002 fire at Yarl’s Wood created an unplanned reduction in detention places.
‘But Campsfield has not changed, it is no more fit for this century now than it was then.
‘Of course we argue that all the other immigration centres are unfit for the 21st century too!’

A Campaign benefit will take place on the evening of Saturday 10 March, when leading singer/songwriters Robb Johnson and Tracy Curtis will perform at the Folly Bridge Inn. Among raffle prizes on the night will be copies of books by Mark Haddon signed by the author. Tickets: 01865 427799.

Contact: Bill MacKeith 558145

Immigration Detention in the UK: Evidence submitted to the Universal Periodic Review

IMMIGRATION DETENTION IN THE UK

Evidence submitted to

the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Universal Periodic Review (United Kingdom) by

the Campaign to Close Campsfield (CCC) and Barbed Wire Britain Network to End Refugee and Migrant Detention

closecampsfield.wordpress.com

barbedwirebritain.wordpress.com

1 Our main concern is the great increase in immigration detention in the UK, from some 100 places in the early 1990s to over 3,000 today. As of June 2011, the UK ‘detention estate’ stood at 3,428 bed spaces. The detention estate does not include prisons, police cells and ‘short term holding facilities’ where, at any one time, hundreds of people are held under 1971 Immigration Act powers.[i]

2 We believe that private companies, motivated by personal financial gain, have largely driven this expansion.[ii] It is matter of concern that an ever-increasing proportion (currently over 75% of places) of immigration detention centres in the UK are run by companies such as GEO (Global Expertise in Outsourcing alias Wackenhutt), Kalyx (a Sodexho subsidiary), GSL (Global Solutions Ltd), Group 4/Securicor, Premier Custodial Group Ltd (a Serco subsidiary), and Mitie.

3 Our main concern is based on a conviction that it is against the human rights of those detained to lock up innocent people without charge for an indefinite period without judicial oversight and without proper reasons given in writing, and without proper access to legal representative. The increasing use of ‘administrative detention’ is also prejudicial to the human rights of everyone in the country.

4 None of those held in detention under Immigration Act powers is in detention because they are serving time for a custodial sentence following a criminal conviction. That is, almost all those detained are innocent of any crime. In the small minority of cases where the immigration detainee has previously been convicted of crime and paid the penalty of a prison sentence, they have already served all their prison time and should no longer be held. (It should be noted that parliament had in recent years enacted law by which it is a ‘crime’ to travel into, work or live in the UK without the ‘correct’ immigration documents approved by the government.)

5 The lack of time limit on immigration detention in the UK means that many people are detained for months, some for years: there are cases of people being detained under Immigration Act powers for up to 8 years.[iii]

6 Such detention without time limit may be argued to be mental torture. We have strongly argued this in submissions to international human rights bodies.[iv] Medical studies by psychologists and psychiatrists support this point.[v] We believe human rights organisations should pay more attention to this aspect of detention.

7 A convicted criminal in the UK knows when he/she may be released. An immigration detainee does not. This is just one example of a way in which an immigration detainee (who is innocent of any crime) is treated worse than a convicted criminal. This is wrong.

8 The UK government fails even to follow its own guidelines on detention with regard to
a)     who should not be detained (victims of torture, pregnant women, children or minors are not infrequently detained) ;
b)    detention being used only as a last resort (it is clear that in many cases alternatives to detention have not been properly considered: this frequently becomes clear in bail hearings or court action against the UK Boarder Agency) ; and
c)     detention being used only when ‘deportation is ‘imminent’: in many cases where the Home Office argues that the person is about to be deported there is no prospect of the necessary documentation being obtained within the foreseeable future, e.g. four weeks.

9 The prevailing ‘culture of disbelief’ and lack of respect for migrants and asylum seekers in the UK Border Agency’s dealings is manifest in the well documented verbal and physical abuse of immigration detainees, in detention and particularly during deportation. The family of Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan who died at the hands of private company G4S guards on board a British Airways flight at Heathrow last year, is still seeking justice: neither the company nor individuals have been charged with a criminal offence. An extensive dossier on physical abuse and assaults on deportees and detainees was published in 2008.[vi]

10 In detention in the UK, detainees are pressurised (through boredom, financial incentive, seeking to please authorities) to work for 50 pence an hour in kitchen, cleaning and other jobs in the detention centre. This cynical cost-cutting exercise by the private companies who thus profit from the ‘slave labour’ flouts UK Minimum Wage law, and is a gross exploitation of people who are in a very vulnerable situation. The practice has been condemned by trade union and other organsiations in the UK.[vii]

11 Until a detainee has his/her immigration status resolved or asylum application finalized, there is only one way he/she can obtain their natural liberty: by convincing an ‘immigration judge’ at an immigration bail hearing in one of the 12 courts across the UK of the First Tier of the Tribunals Service (Immigration and Asylum) that the Home Office is not justified in detaining him/her. Extensive studies have shown that these bail hearings amount in many case to no more than a travesty of justice.[viii]

12 In these hearings the ‘immigration judge’ (who faces much lower entrance qualification requirements than for judges in other courts of the UK) is often seen not to be impartial, the Home Office representative being treated leniently while the bail applicant (the detainee) is frequently not properly treated. This is well documented in the study Immigration Bail Hearings: A Travesty of Justice referred to in the note above. The following is the account of one detainee of his bail hearing:

          “This judge completely ignored the ethical requirement of the profession that gives no room for any partiality between the contending parties. He addresses me uncaring of  the consequences of his utterances. The hatred he has for me was so manifest. He was blunt in his approach and he was openly prejudiced towards me. I felt so humiliated by his actions.

           “He reacted stating that his advice for me was to withdraw all my judicial review claims and get on the plane to Nigeria if I do not want to continue suffering myself in detention. He said I’m the one suffering myself and he could not help my situation unless I help myself by getting on the plane to Nigeria. He never commented on my medications and condition in particular but concluded that the onus is on me to save myself the pain of detention.”

(Extract of complaint from Abiola Ayobola, 28 July 2011, then a           detainee at Campsfield “House”, about his bail hearing held via video link.)

13 In June 2010 the incoming coalition government of the UK promised to end detention of children. This has not happened. It obviously should. But in September 2011 the government opened a new family and children detention centre at Pease Pottage in Sussex, naming it ‘The Cedars’.[ix]

14 There are serious concerns about the quality of medical care available to immigration detainees. Access to health care in detention centres is subject to considerations of profit, which is not the case for the general public in the UK and should not be for those in detention.

15 It is our belief that the gradual creation of “Fortress Europe” not only in the UK but in EU and buffer countries to the east and on North Africa is not only unjust but unsustainable. Serious attention to the above concerns will show that to be the case.

16 Quite apart from the above, which we trust the Universal Periodical Review will address, the Campaign to Close Campsfield also believes that the following is necessary:

Close Campsfield, other detention centres, and detention wings in prisons;
Stop immigration detentions and imprisonment;
Stop racist deportations;
Repeal immigration laws which reinforce racism.

20 November 2011


NOTES

[i] Website of Freemovement, 4 June 2011.

[ii] Christine Bacon (2005) The Evolution of Immigration Detention in the UK: The Involvement of Private Prison Companies, working paper 27, Refugee Studies Centre Oxford

[iii] Detained Lives: The real cost of indefinite immigration detention, London Detainee Support Group, 2009.

[iv] Causing Mental Illness Is Cruel and Inhuman Treatment, submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, from Barbed Wire Britain Network to End Refugee and Migrant Detention, September 2008.

[v] 1. Warehousing: inventory of refugee rights. 2005. Washington DC: US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, 2005.
2 Silove D, Steel Z, Watters C. “Policies of deterrence and the mental health of asylum seekers”. JAMA 2000;284: 604-11.
Sultan A, O’Sullivan K. “Psychological disturbances in asylum seekers held in long term detention: a participant-observer account”. Med J Aust 2001;175: 593-6.
3 Mares S, Newman L, Dudley M, Gale F. “Seeking refuge, losing hope: parents and children in immigration detention”. Aust Psych 2002;10: 91-6.
4 Steel Z, Momartin S, Bateman C, Hafshejani A, Silove D. “Psychiatric status of asylum seeker families held for a protracted period in a remote detention centre in Australia”. Aust N Z J Pub Health 2004;28: 527-36.
5 Palmer M. Inquiry into the circumstances of the immigration detention of Cornelia Rau. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2005.
6 Amnesty International. UK: Seeking asylum is not a crime: Detention of people who have sought asylum. London: Amnesty International, 2005.
7 Fazel M, Stein A. “UK immigration law disregards the best interests of children”. Lancet 2004;363: 1749-50.
8 McCleish J, Cutler S, Stancer C. A crying shame: pregnant asylum seekers and their babies in detention. London: Maternity Alliance, Bail for Immigration Detainees and London Detainee Support Group, 2002.
9 Salinsky M, Dell S. Protection not prison: torture survivors detained in the UK. London: Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, 2001
10 Porter M, Haslam N. “Predisplacement and postdisplacement factors associated with mental health of refugees and internally displaced persons: a meta-analysis”. JAMA 2005;294: 602-12.
11 Mina Fazel and Derrick Silove (2006), “Detention of Refugees”, British Medical Journal, 332: 251-252 (4 February)
12 Derrick Silove (2000), “Policies of Deterrence and the Mental Health of Asylum Seekers”, Journal of The American Medical Association, 284, 5, 604-611 (2 August)
13 Derrick Silove, Patricia Austin and Zachary Steel (2007), “No Refuge from Terror: The Impact of Detention on the Mental Health of Trauma-affected Refugees Seeking Asylum in Australia”, Transcultural Psychiatry, 44, 3, 359-393. August 2, 2000 Vol. 284

[vi] Outsourcing Abuse: The use and misuse of state-sanctioned force during thr detention and removal of asylum seekers, Birnberg Peirce, Medical Justice, and National Coalition of Anti Deportation Campaigns, 2008.

[vii] Slave wages at Campsfield – statement by Oxford Trades Union Council, Campsfield Monitor, 2008.

[viii] A Nice Judge on a Good Day: Immigration Bail and the Right to Liberty, Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2009;Immigration Bail Hearings: A Travesty of Justice? Observations from the Public Gallery, Campaign to Close Campsfield Bail Observation Project, 2011.

18th anniversary demonstration at Campsfield

Sixty demonstrators yesterday demanded that Campsfield be closed, along with all immigration detention centres. Oxford samba band Breach of the Peace played and detainees shouted back and waved white and red cloths from the windows.

Speakers included D, a former Campsfield detainee, who described the ‘hell in there’, said the support from outside was much appreciated by detainees and urged demonstrators to continue.

Gabriel brought solidarity greetings from Peace News. Other speakers were Rebecca from the Coalition Against Bullingdon Immigration Removal Centre, Emma from Medical Justice and Dave from Coventry Trades Council.

The protestors came from London, Warwick, Coventry, Oxfordshire towns and Oxford town and gown.

Earlier, 15 students did a protest bike ride from the Martyrs’ Memorial in Oxford to Campsfield.

The protest  was covered on BBC Oxford TV and included  an interview with the former detainee.

After the demonstration, a meeting of the Barbed Wire Britain anti detention network in Kidlington discussed the past year’s anti detention actions and planned future activity in 2012.

18th anniversary demonstration at Campsfield: 26 November

18th anniversary demonstration at Campsfield: 26 November – come!‏

18 years too long!

Demonstration to mark 18 years since the opening of ‘Campsfield “House” Immigration Removal Centre’ in November 1993

Saturday 26 November 2011, 12noon–2pm
Campsfield main gates, Langford Lane, Kidlington OX5 1RE

Bring music, placards, banners
Speakers include former detainee, migrant worker

After the demo: Barbed Wire Britain get-together at Exeter Hall, Kidlington with food and drink – all welcome

Bike Ride to cycle to Camspfield : Meet 11am at Martyrs’ Memorial, St Giles, Oxford
Public transport: hourly S4 bus to Oxford Airport leaves at 11.15 from stop C4 by side of the Randolph Hotel in Magdalen Street West (last stop before traffic lights).  Some lifts available:   01865 558145
Warning: Drivers, check your insurance, road tax, tyres etc.

Close Campsfield and all immigration detention centres
For freedom of movement and the right to stay

Demonstration supported by Oxford & District Trades Union Council

18 Years Too Long Flyer

Campsfield demonstrators sound warning after Prison Inspector’s report

Press release – 4 October 2010

Campsfield demonstrators sound warning after Prison Inspector’s report

The report on an unannounced vist to Campsfield in May, before Mitie took over, is not harsh, but it does say that:

* Putting detainees in isolation cells is sometimes not properly authorised;

* UKBA casework (which decides the freedom or continuing imprisonment of people not charged with any crime) has ‘weaknesses’;

* there is insufficent use of interpreters and translations;

* there are significant weaknesses in health care;

* there should be more focus on detainee care, not just on control issues; and

* education provision is inadequate.

The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, says ‘this inspection identified few signs of significant deterioration’ – which is not entirely reassuring as it implies there has been some significant deterioration – and ‘too little progress had been made in remedying areas that we had previously identified as requiring improvement and [we] had particular concerns about the lack of progress in health care.’ He hopes that ‘With a new provider in place, there is now no excuse for the centre not to make expeditious progress on our recommendations.’

Bill MacKeith, campaign spokesperson, said ‘We have received reports of a cut in health service personnel at Campsfield since May. So that is cause for grave concern, since the inspectors already had ‘particular concerns’ about this before Mitie took over the centre that month. In that respect the new ‘provider’ is doing worse than GEO.

‘We expressed our concern when Mitie took over, that

1. They reportedly have a record for being hostile to migrant workers;

2. They have no experience of running prisons or detention centres;

3. Chief Executive Ruby McGregor-Smith was one of the 35 bosses who signed a letter to the Telegraph backing public spending cuts in the interests of “a healthier and more stable economy” and commenting on “significant opportunities for the outsourcing market” that would result.

4. Mitie is like other outsourcing companies.They specialise in taking over a service and then squeezing it for profit; finding more ways to exploit staff orcut corners. The migrants wrongfully imprisoned in Campsfield, who provide more or less forced or virtual slave labour for just £5 a day, are specially vulnerable to that exploitation.’

Contact: Bill MacKeith 558145


A few piccies from our benefit gig

We’d like to thank those who were able to come, all those who performed and East Oxford Community Centre for hosting our event. It was a great night and you all helped raise funds and awareness for the Campaign. Here are some photos.

Atilla the Stockbroker

Atilla the Stockbroker

Atilla the Stockbroker

The Knights of Mentis

The Knights of Mentis

The Knights of Mentis

MITIE on facebook – What you thought

Sorry for the delay in posting these.
Here is some of the feedback we managed to grab from Mitie’s facebook page before they began deleting comments questioning their actions. This was in response to Mitie’s take-over of the running of Campsfield House Detention Centre and our call-out.
Thanks to all those who contributed.

Benefit Gig – Saturday 15 October

A BENEFIT GIG FOR THE CAMPAIGN TO CLOSE CAMPSFIELD

Attila the Stockbroker
“Whether he’s ranting a poem or bashing out a song, there is something magnificent about Attila in full flight” Ian McMillan, BBC Radio 4
“Attila views words as weapons – understands art with a small ‘a’” Melody Maker

Plus The Knights of Mentis

Compèred by Bob Hughes of No One is Illegal

SATURDAY, 15 OCTOBER, Doors at 8PM at EAST OXFORD COMMUNITY CENTRE, 44B PRINCES STREET (corner of Cowley Rd), OXFORD, OX1 4HU
TICKETS: £8, CONCESSIONS £5 on the door.

If you are a facebook user please RSVP and invite your
friends at
https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=271298652890904


View Larger Map

Detainees under escort: an alternative perspective

The HM Chief Inspector of Prisons has published two reports into the “escort” and removal of immigration detainees, compiled after inspectors accompanied charter flight removals to Nigeria and Jamaica respectively.

The overwhelming impression given by the reports is of a system that treats detainees as objects that can be moved around at will to meet UK Border Agency objectives, with little regard to their welfare and without recognising them as individual human beings with distinct needs. It comes as little surprise to those involved with supporting detainees that they are routinely dehumanised and subjected to abuse both physical and verbal which tends to worsen throughout the deportation process.

The reports show that force is used routinely and when clearly unnecessary (even to meet the objectives of deportation) and was often counter-productive, raising tensions. While HMIP posits the lack of proper guidelines on using force and restraint as one causal factor, it naturally avoids the question of whether excessive force is an inevitable by-product of the dehumanisation of migrants endemic in the distinctions between escort and detainee, citizen and alien, legal and illegal. Inspectors witnessed handcuffing of female detainees even when compliant, “continuous force” being used on a male detainee who asked to contact his solicitor, and force,  restraint and handcuffs used on a male detainee who was specifically described by the report as “not violent” and who asked to see a medic due to an injury.

Phones were removed and detainees who expressed a wish to contact their solicitors were not told they had a right to do so using a G4S phone. Detainees were subjected to a violent, graphic film depicting scenes of rape which they were not allowed to opt out of. Staff made use of privileges not available to detainees (including hot food/drink and blankets) in their presence.  Officers clearly felt their own preferences and comfort were more important than the detainees’ feelings.

Examples of racist language used by officers included “gypos”, “pikeys”, “typical Asians” and “fucking pikey cunts”, sometimes in private and sometimes in the hearing of detainees.  Use of negative national or regional stereotypes was also prevalent, with Africans described as violent, and Sri Lankans as more likely to self-harm. That officers felt they could use this language and express these sentiments with impunity even while they were being inspected speaks volumes about the perceived inferiority of detainees. A serious debate is needed about whether the reports have flushed out a few bad apples, or whether escorts are led to believe this kind of behaviour is acceptable because the nature of the job requires them to treat detainees as their inferiors who have fewer rights.

During flights, toilet doors could not be closed meaning there was no possibility of privacy, a situation described as “undignified and embarrassing”. Additional stress was created by an inconsistent approach to property which often treated detainees as children who could not be trusted with their own property.

Treatment worsened considerably after arrival at their destination, including physical assault and verbal abuse. Prescription medicines were sometimes denied on arrival at the destination. Officers clearly believed they were not accountable to anyone once on foreign soil; that once leaving the UK detainees had no rights and it did not matter what happened to them – some officers stated this explicitly.  UKBA and G4S showed little or no interest in detainees’ welfare once they were no longer in their custody, with many detainees left in unfamiliar or even dangerous surroundings with no means of support.

The stark realities displayed by these reports should not be left unchallenged but fully exposed and a debate conducted about how these abuses can be combated and detainees supported.