Accountability of Private and State-Run Immigration Detention Centers in the UK

(1)

Institute for Security & Global Affairs

Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs – Leiden University

Master Thesis for Crisis & Security Management

Program: Master Crisis & Security Management Student: Ashly Bennett

Student Number: 0848093 Submitted: 5 August 2018

Title: “Accountability of Private and State-Run Immigration Detention Centers In the UK” Thesis Supervisor: Tim Dekkers MSc

(2)

2

Chapter One: Introduction

1.1 Global Migration and Control

According to the UN’s International Migration Report of 2017, the number of people migrating across borders increased from 173 million in the year 2000 to 258 million in 2017, a 49% increase (United Nations, 2017). There are many different types of migrants ranging from those who seek temporary jobs, to those who are reuniting with family members, and those peoples who have become displaced due to war and conflict (Castles, 2000). A large number of these migrants have chosen to locate in a small number of high income countries such as Germany, the UK, Australia, and Saudi Arabia (United Nations, 2017). The increasing strain on these countries to host such increasing numbers of migrants has recently become the focus of policy changes, especially when it concerns irregular migrants.

In response to the increase in immigration numbers, many popular destination countries have introduced a variety of ways to control the flow of immigrants across and within their borders. Some countries have turned to delegating visa management to non-state actors like Worldbridge, others employ carrier sanctions and still others, and consequently the focus of this research, is the use of immigration detention centers.

1.2 Immigration detention Centers and Accountability

According the to the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees, AVID, immigration detention, “…is the practice of holding people who are subject to immigration control in custody, while they wait for permission to enter or before they are deported or removed from the country. It is an administrative process, not a criminal procedure” (“AVID,” n.d.-a). Those who find themselves placed in one of these centers are often immigrants who have overstayed their visa allowance, committed a crime, are claiming asylum, or are awaiting deportation (“AVID,” n.d.-a). By detaining immigrants in this manner, the host country is able to have greater control over those whose immigration status is not yet determined or who have no legitimate immigration claim, by detaining them in fixed locations.

One concern of the use of immigration detention centers is accountability. Within the academic literature the use of private companies in the running of the centers (and other forms of

immigration control) and the issue accountability is an oft discussed topic of interest. For example, in the article “The Business of Migration Control: Delegating Migration Control

(5)

5

Functions to Private Actors Survey Article”, Bloom concludes that the increasing reliance of governments on private sector services in the field of immigration control currently suffers from a lack of transparency with the result that accountability and responsibility are difficult to determine (Bloom, 2015). Flynn agrees with the conclusion, stating that the involvement of private companies in immigration control and detention poses a particular risk to determining who is accountable when human rights are violated because the state can shift blame to the private company, and the private company can claim that they are only following state orders (Flynn, 2017). Both examples demonstrate that using private companies in immigration control and detention blurs the lines of accountability.

In the specific case of immigration detention centers within the UK, the use of private actors has also been investigated within the literature. For example, Bacon, who investigates the evolution of immigration detention in the UK, believes a key issue in the accountability problem presented by the use of private companies is the fact that unlike the government, private companies do not face the same compulsion to provide public access to their decision making procedures which makes accountability difficult to investigate (Bacon, 2005). Menz also points to the involvement of private companies in UK immigration detention centers hampering the exercise of

accountability. He states that while privately run immigration detention centers are subject to the authority of the Home Office, it remains questionable as to how much inspections and visits contribute to increasing accountability and oversight procedures (Menz, 2011).

1.3 Research Question

While the above examples demonstrate a concern of academic researchers about the level and exercise of accountability when it concerns the use of immigration detention centers, none of them have provided a systematic investigation to determine how accountability deficits come to exist. Bovens believes that the above is an important gap in the study of accountability that needs to be explored; while accountability is an often used concept in literature, “As an icon, the

concept has become less useful for analytical purposes, and today resembles a dustbin filled with good intentions, loosely defined concepts and vague images of good governance”(Bovens, 2007, p.449). To address this gap, he has developed an analytical framework which stems from a narrow definition which sees accountability as, “… a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose

(6)

6

questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences” (Bovens, 2007, p.452). He identifies five different accountability forums that public and private organizations face

(political, legal, administrative, professional and social), which allows for the systematic mapping of accountability mechanisms to assess their effectiveness of their outcomes (Bovens, 2007). By applying Bovens’ framework to the use of immigration detention centers, the research question becomes:

To what extent do accountability mechanisms differ between state-run immigration detention centers and private run immigration detention centers within the UK?

To answer the research question, two cases have been chosen in which a death occurred within both a private and state-run immigration detention center in the UK. Accountability for both cases will be analyzed according to each of the five forums so that a comparison may be made.

1.4 Academic and Social Relevance

Within academia, accountability is a growing concern. However, as Brandsma and Schillemans state, “Accountability is one of the cornerstones of a democratic political system, but remarkably little is known about how it works in practice” (Brandsma & Schillemans, 2013, p.953). This research will add to the literature by providing a systematic analysis and evaluation of how accountability can be empirically investigated in a practical setting, using Bovens’ analytical framework. This application has never before been carried where it concerns accountability in both private run and state-run immigration detention centers. By applying the framework in this manner, it is possible that shortcomings or advantages of the framework will be exposed. Real life settings are often difficult to fit into neat boxes and such an empirical study may show that Bovens’ framework cannot be equally applied in all settings. This would mean that possible corrections or additions may be need to be made to the framework so that it can function more fully. It can also be that the framework is quite up to the task which would indicate that it is appropriate and helpful to apply to other cases outside of immigration detention.

Further, as discussed above, the issue of accountability in the use of both state and private run immigration detention centers is a concern. By examining how the accountability mechanisms differ for state and private run centers in the UK, policy makers and civil servants working within the immigration detention estate can make use of the framework to help them form new

(7)

7

operating standards and policies. For example, before implementing new legislation, law makers could ask themselves if its structured in such a way that it allows for the application of Bovens’ framework. They could ask themselves if there is an obligation for those doing immigration to work to inform forums, if the structure allows for questioning of the workers’ conduct, and if there is a possibility for judgment to be passed. If any of the questions result in a no answer, then policy makers may want to revisit the proposed legislation so that the conditions for

(8)

8

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework

2.1 What is Accountability?

In his article, “‘Accountability’: An Ever expanding Concept?”, Mulgan sums up the current status of accountability within the academic literature as being an increasingly complex concept which has many uses and definitions, to the point that it has lost its initial straightforwardness and requires further classification (Mulgan, 2000). Brandsma and Schillemans further expand on this by pointing out that there are almost as many definitions of accountability as there are articles about which it is written (Brandsma & Schillemans, 2013). Others see accountability as responsiveness to the emerging demands of an increasingly multidimensional and complex atmosphere (Considine, 2002), and some have even applied a broad brush in which

accountability contains a variety of dimensions (Koppell, 2005).

2.2 Expanding Accountability

Mulgan defines accountability in what he calls its core sense, in which he associates

accountability with the process of being called to account by some authority concerning ones conduct or actions (Mulgan, 2000). When perceived in this manner, accountability has three key features: its is external because account is rendered to someone outside oneself, it is a social interaction and exchange between a person asking for account and the other giving it, and it contains rights of authority because the one providing account accepts that he or she is obliged to do so to the requesting authority. Here Mulgan also explains that he believes the application of sanctions should be included into his core view of accountability because without the option to impose them, it seems to him, that calling someone to account is incomplete. He does

acknowledge that not all will agree with this position. For Mulgan, the problem with the concept of accountability in modern literature is that is has been extended well beyond his core concept, which has resulted in it being difficult to define and study in any meaningful way.

2.3 Broad Accountability

An example of how accountability has been expanded in the literature is found in an article by Koppell. His broad conceptualization of accountability stems from his desire not to create an entirely new definition of accountability, but from a desire to incorporate already existing dimensions of accountability into one consolidated typology (Koppell, 2005). Koppell extends accountability beyond Mulgan’s core concept to include dimensions such as transparency,

(9)

9

responsiveness, liability, controllability, and responsibility. It is his belief that all five of these categories serve as a foundation for the multiple ways in which an organization can be held accountable, in a way that does not render accountability to a meaningless and obscure definition.

2.4 Narrow Accountability

In order to conduct an analytical investigation of accountability, Bovens creates a framework which is based upon his narrow definition of accountability. In his article, “Analysing and Assessing Public Accountability: A Conceptual Framework”, Bovens defines accountability as, “…a relationship between an actor and a forum, in which the actor has an obligation to explain and to justify his or her conduct, the forum can pose questions and pass judgment, and the actor may face consequences”(Bovens, 2007, p.452). This sociological definition raises accountability from an evaluative concept to a concrete process in which accountability can be mapped; by narrowing the definitions in this way, a specific set of social relations emerges and opens the way for empirical study(Bovens, 2007).

In order to understand how his framework allows for empirical investigation, Bovens first expands on four elements which are essential to the definition. The first element to be expanded upon is the actor. The actor can be an individual, such as a civil servant, or an organization, such as a parliament or court (Bovens, 2007). Opposite the actor is the second element: the

accountability forum. The accountability forum can also be either an individual such as a minister or journalist, or it can take the form of a virtual entity like the general public (Bovens, 2007). Here, Bovens explains that the relationship between the two takes the form of an agent-principle relationship, in which the forum assumes the role of the agent-principle and the actor as the agent who must render account (Bovens, 2007).

The third element of the definition that needs expanding upon is the obligation. Bovens states that an obligation that lies upon an actor can be either formal or informal. In the case of a formal obligation, the actor is meant to regularly render account to a particular forum, such as a court or a parliamentary body (Bovens, 2007). An informal obligation means that the actor can

voluntarily give account to a forum such as a press conference (Bovens, 2007).

The final element upon which Bovens expands is account giving. Account giving is the

(10)

10

the forum about their conduct. This takes the form of supplying data on things like

performance/outcomes, or, in the case of crises, giving explanations and justifications (Bovens, 2007). Secondly, the forum must then have the opportunity to question the actor concerning their conduct (Bovens, 2007). This interrogation does not necessarily have to take place, but it is important that it is an available option to the forum. Thirdly, the forum can pass judgment upon the actor, either positively or negatively (Bovens, 2007). In the event of a negative judgment, Bovens explains that the actor may then chose to punish the actor by imposing sanctions. However, he goes further to explain that for his narrow definition, it is not important that the sanctions are necessarily imposed, only that the actor can impose them if deemed necessary (Bovens, 2007). Therefore, for Bovens, it is more important that the actor may face

consequences, rather than what the consequences are. The relationship set out in the narrow definition looks thus:

Figure 1: (Bovens, 2007, p.454)

By providing the expansion upon the above elements, Bovens wishes to convey how central the actor-forum relationship is to his narrow definition of accountability.

2.5 Forums of Accountability

After establishing this narrow definition in which the actor-forum relationship is central, Bovens goes on to present a list of different types of accountability forums in which actors will find themselves required to account for their conduct.

The first accountability forum identified by Bovens is political accountability. Here, actors are rendering account to elected representatives, political parties, voters, and to some extent, the media (Bovens, 2007). This is based upon a chain of principle-agent relationships in which the agent carries out tasks on behalf of the principle (Bovens, 2007). For Bovens, this principle agent

(11)

11

chain represents the forum and the actor. In this case, the voters are the forum to which the elected representatives must render account, the representatives are both actor (to the voters), and forum (to the ministers), the ministers are then the actor to the representatives and forum to the civil servants/administrative bodies, and at the end of the chain the civil servants/administrative bodies are the final actor to ministers. In this relationship, the voters and civil servants are at opposite ends and do not change roles (the voter cannot be an actor and the civil servants a forum) (Bovens, 2007).

The second accountability forum is legal accountability; the courts. Bovens terms this forum as the most unambiguous accountability forum because this type of accountability is always formal/legal (Bovens, 2007). This means that individuals and organizations face detailed legal standards set out by legal precedent or by civil, penal, or administrative statutes. He

acknowledges that the legal accountability forum often garners the most trust due to its

formalized nature (Bovens, 2007). In this forum, actors can be called to account for their conduct by civil courts, specialized administrative courts, or even penal courts(Bovens, 2007).

The third accountability forum is administrative accountability. This forum is composed of auditors, inspectors, ombudsmen, and controllers (Bovens, 2007). This is what Bovens calls the quasi-legal forum because these external bodies base their judgments upon previously set norms and statutes. For example, and auditor general exercises financial supervision upon government ministries and organizations to ensure that the spending of public funds is not only legally carried out, but also efficient and effective.

Bovens fourth accountability forum concerns professional accountability, in which actors face scrutiny from their professional peers (Bovens, 2007). This forum highlights the fact that many public managers are also professionals from a variety of backgrounds such as medicine,

teaching, and policing. As such, they, as actors, may also face judgment from professional tribunals within their specific field (Bovens, 2007).

The fifth and final forum of accountability is social accountability. This forum includes interest groups and charities, as well as other stakeholders (customers/clients). Bovens explains that, “… there is an urge in many western democracies for more direct and explicit accountability

(12)

12

other hand” (Bovens, 2007, p.457). This has resulted in more attention given by organizations to their relevant stakeholders when it comes not only to policy, but to accountability, meaning that the organizations are feeling an increase in pressure to account for their conduct to those groups outside of the organization itself. This allows those external interest groups to research and create comparisons between organizations’ performance and conduct within similar fields. Bovens states that while there is not yet conclusive evidence that this forum of accountability has been used in this way, it nevertheless has made actors feel more obligated to publicly provide such information in an effort to uphold their accountability (Bovens, 2007).

The above accountability forums demonstrate the many different accountability relationships between actors and forums which allow for the empirical study of accountability; it establishes the forums to whom actors must render account. This is the focus of the research project.

2.6 Privatization of Immigration Detention

An increasingly growing global trend in migration control practices is the outsourcing of immigration detention services to private organizations (Bloom, 2015) . These organization provide many different types of services such as the building and running of migrant detention centers, the carrying out of deportations, and the lending of health and catering services. Menz argues that this delegation has come about as a result of the neo-liberal ideology which moved away from state centric forms of government and embraced more business like forms of

management where competition and best value for money were desired (Menz, 2009). In the case of immigration management, it was believed that private organizations would be much better equipped to provide services such as detention, in a more cost effective manner (Bloom, 2013). Countries like the UK, Australia and the US were the first to privatize migration detention largely in the 1980’s as neoliberalism also began to grow (Menz, 2011).

Much of the literature concerning the use of private companies in immigration detention focuses on the UK, Australia and the US, because they are the first three countries to implement the use of non-state actors in their immigration control regimes; however, research conducted by the Global Detention Project has indicated that more countries are making use of private security companies and NGOs to tackle their immigration control needs (Bloom, 2013). The UK especially makes use of contracts with private security companies, tendering not only the

(13)

13

out contracts for the provision of staff and the overall management of them. The contracts are often extended over a period of many years and are awarded mainly on the basis of cost and effectiveness (how little money can be spent per detained immigrant per day while still adhering to set government standards).

The primary concerns in the literature of privatization of immigration detention focus on a few themes. First is the concern that the delegation of previously state centered duties erodes the states’ sovereignty and causes a loss of control over its own immigration regime. However, Menz argues that this is not the case, and that the delegation of power to private organizations does not mean that the state has retreated altogether but that it has merely extended its control remotely in all directions (Menz, 2011). A second theme of debate is the effect that this

delegation has on the welfare of those immigrants being detained. Some argue the very nature of the private security companies involved makes it such that the administrative nature of migrant detention becomes blurred with the penal practices that such companies are used to; they are more focused on punishment, not care (Bloom, 2013). Since private security companies are more used to the practice of criminal incarceration based upon the most economic business models, the well being of detained immigrants is often very poor with them only receiving the bare standard of facilities, food, and healthcare (Baird, 2016). A final concern with the privatization of

immigration detention is the effect that it has on accountability. As Gammeltoft-Hansen points out, the current design of immigration control industry is such that there are accountability gaps, even when the privatization is carried out by a contract because of the corporate veil that

surrounds it (Gammeltoft-Hansen, 2011). Here he means that the use of private companies in immigration detention make public scrutiny difficult because the nature of the contracts does not have to be made public, and, that is allows states to shield themselves from responsibility

because if something goes wrong, they can always shift the blame from themselves to the organization in charge (Flynn, 2017).

(14)

14

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Conceptual Framework

The goal of the research project is to investigate accountability; more specifically, to measure the extent to which accountability mechanisms differ between private and state-run immigration detention centers. A first step to conducting the research project is to indicate how the concept of accountability can even be measured. The framework provided by Bovens to map accountability is key to discerning this. The scope of the research is such that an entire mapping of

accountability using Bovens framework is not feasible. Therefore, this research will instead only look at the five accountability types provided by the framework which are necessary to

determine if accountability is present according to Bovens’ narrow definition. To establish this, Bovens provides three questions which can be asked to determine if an accountability

relationship can be said to exist between an actor and the forum: is there a (in)formal obligation for the actor to inform the forum, was there a debate in which the forum could pose questions to the actor, and could/did the actor apply consequences? These three questions will be asked for each of the five accountability forums. In order to compare private and state-run immigration detention centers, the same conceptual framework will be used on both such that any similarities and or differences will emerge and determine which types of accountability are important to the private and state-run immigration centers respectively.

(15)

15

Figure 2: Conceptual Framework

3.2 Case Study

The purpose of this research is to investigate the extent to which accountability mechanisms differ between privately and publicly run immigration centers within the UK. In order to conduct this research a case study approach will be applied. A case study is appropriate to use when the focus of the study is to answer how and why questions, when the researcher cannot manipulate the behavior of those involved in the study, when the researcher wishes to cover the contextual conditions relevant to explaining a phenomenon, or, when the boundaries between the

phenomenon and the context are unclear (Baxter & Jack, 2008). This research uses a case study approach because it wishes to understand a complex phenomenon. The phenomenon being investigated is accountability mechanisms, which Bovens defines as being a complex social relationship.

3.3 Multiple Embedded Case Study

Yin identifies four different case study designs: single holistic, single embedded, multiple holistic, and multiple embedded (Yin, 2006). Single and multiple simply refer to the number of units to be analyzed (one or more). A case study is considered holistic when the researcher is

(16)

16

investigating the global nature of something (Yin, 2006). This means that there are no set or identified sub units of analysis. An embedded study means that the researched has chosen specific sub units to observe (Yin, 2006).

This research will be using the multiple embedded case study design. This design choice is the most logical because the aim of the research is to investigate the extent to which there are differences in the accountability mechanisms for both private and state-run immigration detention centers. Therefore, cases representing similar incidents for each of them is the most fitting. Further, the study is embedded because the research aims not to investigate incidents as a whole, it is only concerned with the accountability aspects of them. Therefore, specifically focusing on the accountability aspect and not the incident in a global manner makes the study embedded according to Yin’s typology.

3.4 Immigration Detention

Since the focus of this research project is centered upon accountability within UK immigration detention centers, it is important to first provide more information about the current state of immigration detention, specifically within the UK.

Flynn describes immigration detention as, “ the deprivation of liberty of non-citizens for reasons related to their immigration status” (Flynn, 2014). While not an entirely new phenomena, the practice and expansion of immigration detention practices has increased around the globe with a concentrated effort by industrial nations to keep unwanted immigrants outside of their borders (De Genova, 2016; Flynn, 2014). Immigrants whose immigration legitimacy is in question can be detained by border security at an airport, road, port, or within the country itself. Those detained are often kept confined in dedicated immigration facilities, prisons, airports/border holding areas, or police stations (UNHCR, 2016).

3.5 Immigration Detention Centers in the UK – Private and State Run

The UK has one of the largest immigration detention regimes in the world with nine immigration removals centers and three short term holding facilities (AVID). People are detained under this system when they are waiting for permission to enter the UK or while awaiting deportation (McGuinness & Gower, 2017). The government stresses that this form of detention is not a criminal procedure, it is merely administrative (McGuinness & Gower, 2017). The powers to

(17)

17

detain are found within different pieces of immigration legislation such as: the Immigration Act 1971, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act of 2002 (McGuinness & Gower, 2017). In the UK, there are two immigration detention centers run by the state: Morton Hall and The Verne. These are administered by Her Majesty’s Prison Service, under the authority of the Home Office, which is an executive agency sponsored by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service which is under the authority of the Ministry of Justice (Home Office, 2017). Morton Hall and The Verne have both been criticized due to the number of immigrants which have died in detention and the prison like conditions which detainees endure (The Guardian, 2017). In addition to the state-run centers, the UK government has awarded a number of contracts to private security companies. These include: Brook House, Tinsley House (both run by G4S), Campsfield, Colnbrook, Harmondsworth (all run by Mitie), Dungavel (by GEO group), Larne House, Pennine House (both Run by Tascor), and Yarlswood (run by Serco). The use of private security companies in the running of these centers has been met with a significant amount of criticism. The concern comes from the fact that the contracts are often awarded based upon how low the daily cost per inmate the company can offer (Bacon, 2005). Many argue that this is makes immigration detention a lucrative business in which profit is put before the immigrant (Bacon, 2005). Further compounding the issue is the fact that private businesses are not as transparent as state ministries, which clouds accountability.

3.6 Case Selection

In order to investigate how accountability mechanisms differ between private and state-run immigration detention centers, two separate cases in which a crisis incident occurred have been selected. Due to the scope restrictions placed on the research project one incident will be chosen each for the privately run and state- run detention centers. In order to provide a more accurate analysis for the research project, the two cases were chosen because they were very similar in most ways. In both cases, each of the detainees were said to have died from natural causes (however natural causes means any type of death that was not homicide or self-inflicted), both deaths were reported in the news, both were investigated by the Prisons and Probation

Ombudsman complete with reports, in both cases there was a delay in calling an ambulance, both deaths were heard by an Inquest jury and both jury’s came back with the verdict that the deaths could have been prevented if proper medical treatment had been provided.

(18)

18

The case selected concerning the death of a man in a private run immigration detention center concern that of a 47-year-old Pakistani man named Muhammed Shukat. Shukat was being detained at the Colnbrook immigration detention center which at the time was run by Serco (is currently run by Mitie) and was awaiting voluntary deportation back to Pakistan. In the early morning of the 2nd of July, he was found collapsed on the floor of his room by his roommate who immediately requested help from staff (Newcomen, 2012). Shukat complained of chest pains and was visibly sweating, however, staff decided that he was suffering from heartburn and helped him back to bed with antacids (Newcomen, 2012). No further medical tests were requested for him even though there were medial facilities on site. Less than two hours later Shukat again collapsed in his room with even more intense complaints of chest pain. This time, on site health workers were called to his room where they failed in their attempts to use a defibrillator and apply CPR. Paramedics were eventually called and transported him to hospital and an hour later he was pronounced dead(Newcomen, 2012). An autopsy would later reveal that he died from coronary heart disease. Investigations into the death by the coroner’s office, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, and an Inquest jury all concluded that there was a possibility that the death could have been prevented had appropriate medical attention been administered as soon as the first complaints were made and an ambulance called (Newcomen, 2012).

The case selected concerning the death of a man in a state-run immigration detention center is that of a 25-year-old Angolan man named Bruno Dos Santos. Dos Santos was being held at the Verne immigration detention center while awaiting involuntary deportation. In the early morning of the 4th_{of June 2014, Dos Santos was discovered dead in his room by one of the staff}

(Newcomen, 2015). While the staff was aware of the fact that Dos Santos suffered from epilepsy and was providing medicine for treatment, he had missed several appointments to receive an MRI scan due to security reasons and the staff had failed to reschedule it (Newcomen, 2015). Further compounding this issue was the fact that medical staff at the center were aware that he often skipped his epilepsy medicine, yet failed to properly follow up with him or monitor the situation (Newcomen, 2015). An autopsy revealed that Dos Santos had died from a rare brain disease called neurosarcoidosis (chronic inflammation of the brain). Investigations into the death by the coroner’s office, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, and an Inquest jury all concluded that there was a possibility that the death could have been prevented had Dos Santos received the scheduled MRI and had medical staff been more proactive in following up his failure to take his

(19)

19

medications (Newcomen, 2015). Further, it was stated that staff did not immediately call an ambulance once Dos Santos body had been discovered.

3.7 Data Collection

According to Yin, the validity of the case study is strengthened when a variety of different sources are used (Yin, 2009). He highlights six different types of data, two of which will be used in this research project: documents and archives. These will be collected through desk top research and will consist of both primary and secondary sources.

The primary sources will be government legislation, government service orders, policy papers, parliamentary debates, court documents, and corporate reports. These were searched for on UK government sites such as the Home Office, The National Archives, Parliament.uk, and the website of Serco. The key search words and terms included: immigration, immigration

detention/laws/enforcement/care, asylum, migrant death, Colnbrook IRC, The Verne, HM prison Services (Home Office by proxy), Muhammed Shukat immigration, and Bruno Dos Santos immigration. The secondary sources use are government/UN/monitoring board/ombudsman reports, newspaper articles/videos, social media and websites. The search terms used for finding the secondary sources were much the same as those used for the primary ones.

To analyze the data, a cross case analysis approach will be taken. According to Khan and VanWynsberghe, a cross case analysis approach is useful to, “…facilitat[ing] the comparison of commonalities and difference in the events, activities, and processes that are the units of analyses in case studies” (Khan & VanWynsberghe, p.2, 2008). That is what this research aims to do; to compare the differences and similarities between accountability mechanisms between private and state-run immigration detention centers using two cases which represent crisis events. The

qualitative comparative analysis technique will be employed. This method of analysis was created so that certain aspects of the case may be examined, which fits in with the aims of this research project. The qualitative comparative analysis is similar to the Boolean method in the sense that the cases and the outcomes are arranged in a sort of truth table in order to reveal common or different outcomes (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008). This research project will also arrange the data in a table format. For each of the accountability types and the three questions asked to establish the accountability relationship (based on the developed indicators), a yes or no answer to each question will be revealed. This will be done for each of the two cases in which

(20)

20

the similarities and/or differences between accountability in the private and state-run immigration centers will become visible.

3.8 Data Analysis

Once the data has been collected, an analysis of the documents will need to take place. Firstly, documents will be sorted according to the forums to which they belong: political, legal, administrative, professional, and social. This will be determined by the type of document it is. For example, documents pertaining to legislation, parliament, and ministers will be categorized under the political forum. Those that concern laws, courts, and legal statues will fall under the legal category. Those documents covering the role of inspectors, auditors and ombudsmen will be assigned to the administrative category. Reports and documents which concern oversight bodies will go into the professional body. Lastly, any documents that concern stakeholders, civil interest groups, charities, independent monitoring boards, and media will fall under the social forum. Once the relevant documents and reports have been assigned a category, they will then be analyzed according to the three questions to determine the accountability relationship as set out in Bovens’ frame work. They will be coded into three categories: does the information

demonstrate the existence of an obligation for the forum to be informed? Does the information demonstrate that there was an opportunity for the forum to pose questions? Does the information demonstrate that there was the possibility for the forum to pass judgement? By analyzing the documents in this manner, the research question will be answered.

3.9 Operationalization

In order to operationalize the conceptual framework introduced at the beginning of the chapter, a table was created which details the five types of accountability, the forums which are present (as indicated by Bovens), the three questions for measuring the accountability relationship, and indicators which were developed by the researcher. This table will then by applied to both of the selected cases in which the three questions will be asked, on the basis of each forum in each accountability type and the indicators to determine if an accountability relationship can be said to exist. This will be determined by a simple yes or no answer for each of the three questions

concerning each of the accountability types, for both of the cases. Here it is important to note that the first question, is the actor obliged to inform the forum about his or her conduct, is central to establishing if an accountability relationship exists (Bovens, 2007). If the actor has no

(21)

21

obligation to inform the forum about his or her conduct, then the principle-agent relationship cannot be said to exist as the actor will have no reason to account for his or her conduct. If there is no account rendering, then there can be no debate/questioning, nor can there be any

application of consequences. However, this requirement is not as strict concerning the other two facets of the accountability relationship. It is still possible to speak of an accountability

relationship if the forum has not questioned the actor and/or applied consequences; however, the accountability relationship would then be weak. Once this has been carried out for both of the selected cases, an analysis of the similarities and differences between the different accountability forms for the private and state-run can take place and possible explanations for them can be explored.

(22)

22

Table 1: Operationalization

Accountability Type

Forum Bovens 3 Steps Indicators

Political Parliament/Ministries Did the actor have an obligation? -Laws which oblige the actor to inform parliament of its conduct

Was there a possibility for the forum to question the actor?

-Laws which allow the parliament to question the actor.

Did the forum pass judgment (were there consequences for the actor?)

-Were there legal sanctions applied?

-Were there informal consequences such as a head of a center or ministry being fired? Legal Courts Did the actor have an obligation? -Legal statues dictating actor behavior

-Laws obliging actor to present their case in a court of law

-Legal process in which courts can question the actor about conduct or event

Did the forum pass judgment? -Verdict/ legal repercussions Administrative Inspectors,

Ombudsmen, Auditors.

Did the actor have an obligation? -Are there obligations to provide audit reports -Are they required to adhere to requests by ombudsmen

(23)

23

-Are they obligated to submit to inspections

-Laws/administrative statues and regulations allowing the auditors, ombudsmen, and inspectors to question the actors about the incidents

Did the forum pass judgment? -Were penalties applied (formal or informal sanctions)

-Were recommendations made? Professional Professional

Bodies/Associations

Did the actor have an obligation? -Standards set out by professional associations concerning professional conduct. Regulations obliging the actor have and to adhere to the set standards.

-Was the actor questioned about the conduct by the professional peers/panels?

Did the forum pass judgment? -Were there professional repercussions for the actor (condemning reports, sanctions, removal from professional associations)?

Social Stakeholders/Civil Interest Groups

Did the actor have an obligation? -Did the actor feel formally or informally

(24)

24

-Are there open channels for clients and/or interest groups to contact and discuss incidents and conduct with the actor?

Did the forum pass judgment? -Were there consequences such as a loss of contracts, funding, or association?

Non-Government Monitoring Boards/Charities/ Volunteers

Did the actor have an obligation? - Did the actor feel formally or informally

obliged to discuss its conduct or provide reports? Was there a possibility for the forum

to question the actor?

-Are there open channels for clients and/or interest groups to contact and discuss incidents and conduct with the actor?

Did the forum pass judgment? -Were recommendations made? -Were sanctions applied? Media (TV,

Newspapers, Social media, Radio)

Did the actor have an obligation? -Did the actor feel obliged to speak to the press or make any statements concerning their conduct?

-Did the actor voluntarily enter into a press conference, interview or engage with the public in social media?

Did the forum pass judgment? -Were there calls for a boycott? -Were there protests?

(25)

25

Chapter 4: Analysis

In this section, the analysis of accountability according to the five forums, on the basis of the two cases will be carried out.

4.1 Political Accountability

The first accountability forum refers to political accountability. In Bovens’ framework, this type of accountability concerns the parliament, the Ministers, and the ministries involved in the immigration policy and implementation. Parliament is the body that creates the policy, ministers are appointed to ensure that this policy is being implemented, and the ministries are the ones who carry the implementation out. Concerning the political accountability forum, the ministries are responsible to the ministers, who are in turn responsible to provide account to parliament itself. 4.1.1 Case 1: Private Run Immigration Detention Centers

To determine accountability in the political forum, three questions must be answered. Was there an obligation for the forum to be informed, was there an opportunity for the forum to pose questions and, was there the possibility for the forum to pass judgment.

The answer to the first question as to whether or not there was an obligation to inform the forum, the answer is yes. The immigration detention center where Mr. Shukat died was Colnbrook, which at the time was run by Serco. The UK Home Office is the department responsible for awarding contracts for the management of immigration detention centers, and it is to them that center managers and staff are accountable. While the companies managing immigration

detention centers are responsible for organizing and maintaining the day to day activities and management of the center, they must adhere to government standards of operating which are outlined in guidance and orders published by the Home Office(Gov.uk, n.d.-b). These guidelines are to ensure that the government and those providing services for them are functioning

effectively and in accordance with the UK’s laws and regulations. One important guidance concerns the required actions of Home Office staff and center operating staff in the occurrence of a detainee death(Gov.uk, 2014a). It is from this guidance that it can be determined that in the case of the death of Mr. Shukat, Serco staff at Colnbrook did have an obligation to inform the Home Office of his passing. Within the guidance it is stated that the center supplier must immediately report any death to the Home Office(Gov.uk, 2014a). The Home Office must be contacted because it is the ministry responsible for immigration detention centers, and, having

(26)

26

awarded the contract to Serco, holds responsibility for the actions and people within the center it runs. Therefore, under the guidance published by the Home Office, Serco staff did have an obligation to inform of Mr. Shukat’s death and that obligation was met. However, individual deaths such as that of Mr. Shukat, are not often handled by ministers, but they do have the powers to call on the Home Office to explain its actions.

The answer to the second question concerning if there was an opportunity for the forum to pose questions, is also a yes. When a death occurs in a detention center, Home Office staff have a variety of duties to carry out as outlined by the guidance and operating standards. These include notifying the relevant departments within the Home Office, confirming that the police have been notified of the death, and communicating the death to the rest of the detention estate(Gov.uk, 2014a). From this information concerning the Home Office responsibilities, it can be determined that Home Office staff did have an opportunity to question Serco staff about Mr. Shukat’s death. This can be determined because as stated in the guidelines, when notifying the next of kin, the Home Office must include information pertaining to the circumstances and possible cause of death(Gov.uk, 2014b). This information can only be discerned by the Home Office having the ability to question the Serco staff in charge of managing the center. Where it concerns the accountability chain between the Home Office, the Minister of State for Immigration, and the Secretary of State, it too can be determined that there is an opportunity for questions to be posed since the Home Office is under their authority and accountable to them. However, in the specific case of the death of Mr. Shukat, it is unknown if the Home Office was called upon by the

ministers as they do not handle individual cases of detainee death and there is no information which states if this occurred.

The final question about whether or not there was a possibility for judgment to be passed, the answer is yes. The Home Office is responsible for awarding and ensuring that contracts it has given to private sector companies are properly carried out. By managing Colnbrook immigration detention center, Serco was providing a service to the Home Office. With any service contract, there are set time limits, and in the case of Serco’s contract with the Home Office, the contract was for ten years(Powerbase, n.d.). If, at the end of the contract, the party receiving the services is not satisfied, it may choose not to renew it and award the next contract to a different company. It is in this sense that the Home Office had the opportunity to pass judgement on Serco, by not

(27)

27

renewing its contract. In fact, when the contract ended in 2014, the Home Office did not renew with Serco, choosing to award the new contract to another company called Mitie(Corporate Watch, 2014). However, the reasons for this change are not known and it cannot be concluded that this was due to the death of Mr. Shukat, or any other detainees at Colnbrook which occurred under Serco’s management. However, according to Bovens’ framework, it is not important what judgment was passed, only that there be a possibility for it to occur(Bovens, 2007).

4.1.2 Case 2: State Run Immigration Detention Centers

The first question concerning the obligation to inform can be answered with yes. Within the UK, border security and enforcement, visas and citizenship, and immigration all fall under the

responsibility of the Home Office, this includes immigration detention centers(Gov.uk, n.d.-a). Being a government ministry, the Home Office is accountable to the Minister of State for Immigration who assists the Secretary of State with immigration related work. When a serious incident such as a death occurs in a detention center, it is the responsibility of the Home Office to ensure that the appropriate procedures and requirements are followed. These actions are the same ones which are applied to the private run centers and are set out in guidance’s and orders. In the case of the death of Mr. Dos Santos at the state-run immigration center the Verne, it can be determined that there was an obligation of the Home Office to inform the Minister of State for Immigration about his passing. This obligation is set out in the guidelines for how staff are to handle a death in detention(Gov.uk, 2014b). The guidance says that when a death has occurred, it is the responsibility of Home Office to draft a submission to the Immigration Enforcement Director General, and, most important here, to the Minister of State for Immigration(Gov.uk, 2014b). It is stated that this must be done as promptly as possible. This therefore fulfills the requirement of the Home Office to inform the Minister of State to whom it is accountable. The second question concerning the opportunity for the Minister of State for Immigration to question the Home Office is yes, but indirectly. The Minister of State for Immigration is in charge of overseeing all aspects of the UK’s immigration estate, including immigration detention centers. All civil servants and Home Office employees, involved in carrying out immigration work are directly accountable to this minister(Parliament, n.d.). When overseeing the work of the Home Office, the Minister of State for Immigration is ensuring that the proper protocols and policies are followed because he or she is ultimately accountable for the work done(Parliament,

(28)

28

n.d.). In order to achieve this, the Minister of State must be able to keep informed by requesting information and questioning employees. Therefore, in the case of the death of Mr. Dos Santos, it can be determined that the Minister of State had the opportunity to question Home Office staff. However, this would be an indirect opportunity because the Minister of State does not normally get involved with the individual deaths that occur in immigration detention centers. Where it concerns the death of Mr. Dos Santos, there is no record, report, or parliamentary debate that refers to the Minister of State questioning the Home Office about its conduct. Therefore, while it is within the power of the Minister of State for Immigration to pose questions to Home Office employees working in immigration, it is unknown if this happened in this particular case. The final question concerning the possibility of the Minister of State to pass judgment on the Home Office is no. While Ministers are accountable for the conduct of the civil servants under their oversight, they do not have the power to choose which civil servants work for them and they cannot fire them(Parliament, n.d.). It is left to the heads of the departments in which civil servants are employed to decide upon dismissals. It is also not the task of ministers to criticize the work carried out but those under its authority. That is left to independent monitoring and inspection bodies. Therefore, in the case of Mr. Dos Santos’ death, it can be determined that the Minister of State for Immigration did not have the opportunity to pass judgment on the Home Office in the form of criticisms or dismissals.

Within the political forum it can be seen that the results for both cases are similar, but not exactly identical. The one direct difference between the two cases concerns the question of whether or not there was possibility for judgement to be passed. While the possibility exists for the private run centers, it is not present for the state run ones because the Minister of State for Immigration, by nature of the position, is unable to criticize or dismiss employees(Parliament, n.d.).

4.2 Legal Accountability

Within the UK, any institution that has the power to detain people has obligations as a public authority under the Human Rights Act of 1998(United Kingdom, 1998). The Human Rights Act of 1998 is an act of the UK parliament designed to integrate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into the UK legal framework. This means that all courts and tribunals within the UK have a duty to interpret legislation is such a way that it adheres to the rights laid down by the ECHR. In the case of detention by public authorities, which includes private contractors

(29)

29

operating immigration detention centers, the state, when detaining people within its custody, is required to comply with the standards set out by the ECHR and other international governing bodies(Harris & Pickles, 2016).

Article 2 and the right to life of the ECHR give the state a duty to investigate the death of any detainee in its custody(House of Lords & House of Commons, 2004). Therefore, to be in accordance with Article 2, an investigation must be carried out and be: independent, effective, prompt, transparent, and allow for the participation of the deceased’s next of kin.

4.2.1 Case 1: Private Immigration Detention Center

According to Bovens’ framework to determine accountability within the legal forum, there must be an obligation for the immigration detention center to inform the courts, for the courts to be able to question the center about their conduct, and to determine if the courts passed judgement. In the UK, the court which handles such investigations is the Coroners Court to whom center managers are accountable.

The answer to the question if Colnbrook had an obligation to inform the courts concerning its conduct in the case of Mr. Shukat’s death is yes. Under UK legislation, specifically the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009, section 1 states that a coroner has a duty to investigate certain deaths, which includes the death of any person in state custody which includes immigration

detention(United Kingdom, 2009). This investigation is always in the form of a coroners Inquest. The initiation of the Inquest places certain obligations upon the public authorities involved, in this instance, the staff and employees of Serco which were working at Colnbrook. According to the Guide to Coroners Services published by the Ministry of Justice, at the start of an Inquest, the coroner who is conducting it has the right to call witnesses to provide evidence and testimony about the case(Ministry of Justice, n.d.). These witnesses will be asked to participate either on a voluntary basis or be formally summoned(Ministry of Justice, n.d.). This is the obligation placed upon staff; the requirement to provide evidence and testimony concerning the circumstances and actions leading up to, during, and after the death of a detainee. In the death of Mr. Shukat, there was, as dictated by law, an Inquest investigation carried out by a coroner in which witnesses were called to give testimony(Harris & Pickles, 2016). Therefore, it can be said that the legal obligation placed upon Colnbrook to inform the courts has been met.

(30)

30

The next question, concerning if there was a possibility for the forum to question Colnbrook concerning its actions in regards to the death of Mr. Shukat, also has a yes answer. As already mentioned, the coroner, when conducting an Inquest has the power to summon witnesses. While one purpose that the witnesses serve is to provide testimony and evidence concerning the

circumstances related to the death, they will also be questioned(Ministry of Justice, n.d.). According to the Guidance to Coroner Services, the coroner will be the first to question the witnesses about the incident (Ministry of Justice, n.d.). In this sense, the questioning by the coroner is considered the possibility for the forum to question the actor. In the case of the death of Mr. Shukat, it has been determined that a coroners Inquest took place, and therefore, that witnesses had been called and questioned concerning the circumstances of his death(Newcomen, 2012). However, despite knowing that an Inquest had been conducted, there still remains an issue with transparency. While the public is always invited to attend any hearings carried out in a coroners Inquest, the transcripts are not made publicly available afterwards, only the verdict. From secondary sources such as newspaper articles, it can be established that at least one eyewitness gave testimony(Taylor, 2012). That eyewitness was the cellmate of Mr. Shukat who was present in the room at the lead up to his death. Also, a PPO report also states that at least one doctor who had seen Mr. Shukat during his time in detention had been requested to give

testimony by the coroner(Newcomen, 2012).

The final question in determining the accountability relationship is to determine if the courts passed judgment. In the case of the death of Mr. Shukat at Colnbrook, the answer is yes. The task of a coroner during an Inquest is to establish the relevant facts relating to the death that occurred, which is then rendered as a verdict. In the case of Mr. Shukat, the coroners Inquest came back with a verdict that determined neglect by Colnbrook’s medical staff during the lead up to his death. Therefore, the legal forum did pass judgement concerning the death of Mr. Shukat. 4.2.2 Case 2: State-Run Immigration Detention Center

To determine the legal accountability for the death of a detainee in a state-run immigration detention center, the same three questions that were answered above, must also be answered here. Due to the nature of the legal forum, most of the explanation concerning the workings of the coroners Inquest and CPS have already been outlined. Therefore, the analysis here will be

(31)

31

less detailed and focus only on the relevant information as it pertains to the case of Mr. Dos Santos.

In this second case, the immigration detention center concerned is The Verne, which is under the authority of the Home Office, and it concerns the death of Mr. Dos Santos. The first question, which is to determine if the center had an obligation to inform the courts about the death of Mr. Dos Santos, has a yes answer. As stated for the previous case concerning the death at a private run immigration detention center, the requirement to inform the coroner exists here. Therefore, a coroners Inquest is, by law, required to be conducted because Mr. Dos Santos died while in a form of state detention. As such, the coroner therefore called witnesses to provide evidence and testimony concerning the death. Since the coroner has the power to call witnesses in this manner, it can be said that the Verne was obligated to inform the courts of the legal forum and that the obligation was also met(Newcomen, 2015).

The second question which asks if there was an opportunity for the forum to question the Verne about the death, has a yes answer. Again, like the previous case of the private detention center, the witnesses present at the coroners Inquest are subjected to questioning by both the coroner and other interested persons. Since it can be determined that the Inquest investigation took place, it can be said that the relevant persons were questioned. The same issue of transparency which was present in the first case is also present here. While the public is allowed to be attend the hearings held in the coroners Inquest, the transcripts are not published for the public, only the verdict is public knowledge(Harris & Pickles, 2016).

The final question asked concerns if the forum passed judgment concerning the death and the answer is again, yes. Concerning the death of Mr. Dos Santos, the coroners Inquest rendered a narrative verdict which determined that he had died of unexpected natural causes(Newcomen, 2015). The fact that a narrative verdict was given allowed for the conclusions reached by the Inquest to be more detailed. In Mr. Dos Santos’ case, it was determined that although the death was natural causes, there was a concern about the fact that he had missed several appointments to receive an MRI scan for his epilepsy(Newcomen, 2015). The verdict stated that had he received this scan, it was possible that his death from the brain disease neurosarcoidosis may have been prevented since the scan would have allowed for its identification and treatment(Newcomen,

(32)

32

2015). Therefore, it can be said that the forum did indeed pass judgement on the conduct of the Verne in the case of Mr. Dos Santos’ death.

The outcomes of the legal accountability forum are the same in both cases. This can be attributed to the nature of the legal forum in which laws are clearly stated and applied equally by the courts. In the legal forum it can therefore be concluded that the accountability mechanisms were strongly present for both private and state-run immigration detention centers because both were legally subjected to a coroners Inquest which was subsequently carried out.

4.3 Administrative Accountability Forum

Within Bovens’ framework, the administrative accountability forum is composed of

organizations such as inspectorates, auditors and ombudsmen. Within the UK there are a handful of independent organizations which are charged with inspecting and investigating the activities of the immigration detention estate. The most important body concerning deaths in detention centers is the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), which carries out independent investigations whenever a death has occurred.

4.3.1 Case 1: Private Immigration Detention Center

To determine accountability within the administrative forum there must be an obligation to inform the forum, the forum must be able to question the center about its conduct, and the forum must be able to pass judgement on the center. As stated above, the administrative forum is the PPO since it is the investigatory body that investigated the death.

The answer as to whether or not Colnbrook had an obligation to inform the PPO about the

circumstances and death of Mr. Shukat is yes. The entire foundation and creation of the PPO was to investigate deaths of detainees. The independent nature of the investigations they carry out are integral to maintaining accountability, and hence the public integrity of the UK of the

government and its activities. In order to allow the PPO to carry out its investigations, the government must ensure that the ombudsman and his or her team have the full cooperation of government organizations and institutions. In immigration detention, the Home Office and Immigration Enforcement have created a collection of documents that staff of the Home Office and detention centers are to follow. This guidance is offered in the form of what are termed Detention Service Orders (DSOs). When a death in an immigration detention center has

(33)

33

to. When a detainee has died, the DSO states that the center supplier, in this case Colnbrook, must immediately report it to the most senior member of the Home Office Immigration

Enforcement team, who is then responsible for immediately notifying the PPO(Gov.uk, 2014b). It can be determined that this obligation of notification took place because the PPO report on the death of Mr. Shukat states that the investigation began on 13 July, just days after his

death(Newcomen, 2012). Further, the Terms of Reference for the PPO states that the investigator must have full access to all relevant documents pertaining to the deceased in order to carry out the investigation. According to the PPO report this occurred, with the investigator having access to and having made copies of all the files and documents related to Mr. Shukat(Newcomen, 2012). Therefore, there is an obligation for the administrative forum to be informed, and this obligation was met.

Regarding the second question as to whether the PPO had the opportunity to question Colnbrook concerning Mr. Shukat’s death, the answer is also yes. The thoroughness of the PPO

investigation depends on its ability to access all necessary documents, staff, and other relevant individuals. To ensure this, the Secretary of State for Justice has granted the PPO with Rights to Access(PPO, n.d.). This right gives the ombudsman access to all relevant material which either originates from, or is related to, organizations and contractors who provide services to, or on behalf of, government agencies (this includes classified materials). Also, the ombudsman must be allowed to visit the premises of the institution where the death occurred in order to review any relevant materials such as documents in computer systems or CCTV footage(PPO, n.d.). Further included in the Right of Access is the ability for the PPO to interview employees, detainees, and other individuals without being hindered in their access to them. In the case involving the death of Mr. Shukat, it can be determined that these rights of access were respected, allowing the PPO investigator to question Colnbrook staff and detainees about the circumstances of his death. The evidence of this occurring can be found in the PPO report. Firstly, the report states that a PPO investigator made several visits to Colnbrook in the duration of the investigation(Newcomen, 2012). During these visits, the investigator interviewed seven staff members and even met with the Serco Contract Director(Newcomen, 2012). The investigator was also granted access to the room Mr. Shukat was staying in, as well as to the onsite healthcare wing. The report of the PPO on its investigation into the death of Mr. Shukat clearly demonstrates that there was a possibility

(34)

34

for the ombudsman to question Colnbrook and Serco staff about their conduct as it related to the death, and that this opportunity was fully complied with.

The third question about the PPO passing judgement on Colnbrook concerning the death of Mr. Shukat is also yes. One of the key aims of the PPO’s investigation into deaths in custody is to ensure that Article 2 of the ECHR has not been breached, that any failings have been identified and met with changes to policy, operating methods or practices, and to ensure that any future deaths do not occur in a similar way. In order to fulfill these requirements, the ombudsman must pass judgment on the actions and conduct of the organizations or agencies under investigation. It does so in the form of recommendations which are published in the PPO report. In the case of the death of Mr. Shukat, the PPO did include eight recommendations to Colnbrook (Newcomen, 2012). By providing these recommendations, the PPO is passing judgement on the actions of the center to prevent similar circumstances that occurred to the lead up and time of Mr. Shukat’s death. It can therefore be said that the PPO passed judgement on Colnbrook concerning its conduct.

4.3.2 Case 2: State run Immigration Detention Center

Like the first case, determining the accountability of the administrative forum is depended upon three questions. Similar to the legal accountability forum, the ombudsmen and the obligations involved are the same for both the private run and state-run immigration detention centers. Therefore, the analysis here will also be briefer and only provide those explanations which are relevant to the case of Mr. Dos Santos.

The first question which concerns the obligation for the Verne to inform the PPO of the death of Mr. Dos Santos can be answered with yes. The same guidance set out in the DSO that the center must contact the most senior manager of the Home Office Immigration Enforcement and that that manager in turn must contact that PPO, also exists for state run immigration detention centers(Gov.uk, 2014b). This is known to have occurred in Mr. Dos Santos’ death as the PPO report states that its investigator made the first visit to the center on 11 June, which was days after the death had occurred. Also, the Right of Access afforded to the ombudsman are also granted in the case of a death in a state-run immigration detention center. This right was respected in this case as the PPO report states that the investigator reviewed copies of Mr. Dos Santos’ medical records, as well as other relevant documents pertaining to his