header-logo header-logo

20 June 2019
Issue: 7845 / Categories: Legal News , Immigration & asylum , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Brook House inquiry

A proposed Home Office investigation into claims of systemic abuse at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre is insufficient, the High Court has held.

Mrs Justice May held that any inquiry must be able to compel the 21 staff from the security firm G4S to give evidence. She said ‘the egregious nature of the breaches’ meant any inquiry into the claims should have these powers. She also ruled that the detainees must be entitled to publicly-funded lawyers since, for justice to be done in ‘any meaningful way’, the detainees ‘must be able to meet their [alleged] abusers on equal terms’. Further, the inquiry must be held in public, she said.

The case was brought by two former detainees, MA and BB, who featured in an undercover BBC Panorama programme on the centre in 2017. The programme revealed staff mocking and assaulting detainees.

Duncan Lewis solicitor Lewis Kett, who represented MA, said the judgment ‘ensures that those officers can be held to account’. He said a full statutory inquiry is now necessary.

Martha Spurrier, Liberty director, said: ‘To even begin to put an end to this inhumanity the government must implement a 28 -time limit on detention.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll