Topic: United Kingdom

ONGOING CASE: PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANY ACCUSED OF SPYING ON JULIAN ASSANGE

Background

Australian born Julian Assange is an acclaimed editor and founder of media company WikiLeaks. In 2010, WikiLeaks released footage showcasing United States soldiers opening fire on Iraqi civilians as well as a compilation of leaked documents by Chelsea Manning coined the Afghan War Diary by WikiLeaks. Following these leaks and other ensuing factors which the United States viewed as a threat to their national security, investigations on Assange and WikiLeaks began. That same year, Swedish authorities issued an arrest warrant accusing Assange of rape and sexual assault. In March 2018, the United States filed an indictment against Assange.  

For the next 14 years, Assange would face a long and arduous legal battle. While in detention in the United Kingdom, Assange denied Swedish authorities’ allegations and instead held that such claims were part of a plan to extradite him to the United States for prosecution on the basis of the WikiLeaks disclosures. In 2012, Ecuadorian then-president, Rafael Correa granted asylum to Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London after 2 months of taking refuge. Assange was then was given Ecuadorian citizenship.  

Once Lenin Moreno was elected president of Ecuador in May 2017, Assange experienced a turn of events. He no longer had access to internet connection and outside visitors were prohibited from entering the premises to visit him. His lawyers, however, were still allowed to continue their activities and visit Assange. Under the decision of President Moreno, Assange was handed over to the British authorities after having been granted asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for seven years. Assange was arrested by United Kingdom police officers and was incarcerated for five years. Throughout his time in the British prison, Assange continued to fight against attempts to extradite him to the United States. 

The Incidents

Security guards were employed by Undercover Global S.L in Puerto Real. It is a Spanish security company that is based in the province of Cádiz. The National Intelligence Secretariat funded the private security services with a budget of $5 million. A day before Assange’s arrest, WikiLeaks claimed that it had identified a “major spying operation” against Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy premises. The security firm Undercover Global S.L., responsible for safeguarding the diplomatic premises from 2012 to 2018, allegedly directed its personnel to gather extensive intelligence on Assange on information about his legal representatives and associates. 

According to the Acting director of University of New South Wales’s Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Under Cover S.L “set up a surveillance operation inside the Ecuadorian embassy: microphone, video cameras and eventually live-streaming, and it seems that everything was monitored, including lawyer-client meetings, and including the personal technical equipment of individuals who might be visiting Julian Assange at the embassy”. Intelligence was then likely provided to the US authorities and the CIA.  

Sworn witness statements submitted to the Spanish court reportedly contained evidence of surveillance activities. These statements allegedly indicate that a lengthy seven-hour consultation between Assange and his legal counsel on Sunday, June 19, 2016, was subject to audio recording. Furthermore, witness testimony mentioned Assange’s name, claiming that data from his iPad, which had to remain outside the meeting room, was allegedly copied and subsequently transmitted to US officials. 

Investigations and Legal Aspects 

Assange filed a criminal complaint and accused Undercover Global S.L., director, David Morales and the private security company of privacy offenses involving “violations of his privacy and the secrecy of his client-attorney privileges, as well as misappropriation, bribery and money laundering”.  

Evidence showed Morales expressed verbal and written statements suggesting that even though the company was contracted by the government of then-Ecuadorian President Correa, he was simultaneously involved with the Americans, acting in a two-fold manner.  

Since then, Spain’s High Court began an investigation on Morales as well on the basis of  alleged unlawful activities of  his company. Furthermore, a lawsuit was brought by four Americans who visited Assange against the CIA in the United States Federal Court in 2023 on the basis that their privacy rights were violated under the Fourth Amendment.  

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct states that Member and Affiliate Companies will comply, and will require their Personnel to comply, with applicable law which may include international humanitarian law, and human rights law as imposed upon them by applicable national law, as well as all other applicable international and national law (paragraph 21 of the Code).  

Member and Affiliate Companies will exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with the law and with the principles contained in this Code, and will respect the human rights of persons they come into contact with, including, the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly and against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy or deprivation of property (paragraph 21 of the Code). 

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, responsible and continue to respect the rule of law.  

Impact

In November 2019, however, the Swedish case against Assange on allegations of rape and sexual assault was dropped. Authorities justified the decision by saying that substantial time had passed since the offence. Fast forward to June 24, 2024, Assange was released from prison and granted bail by the High Court in London after pleading guilty to one count of breaching the espionage law. This agreement was reached through tedious diplomatic dialogue led by Australia. Days after his release, the WikiLeaks founder appeared in court at Saipan (US Pacific territory) “where he will be sentenced to 62 months of the time already served”. 

 

Discussion

How can private security companies use technology in a responsible manner? 

What are the human rights which have allegedly been breached in this case? 

What legal and ethical considerations arise from surveillance activities conducted by private security companies? 

Sources

 

 

This case was prepared by Anyssa Boyer, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

ABUSE AND MISTREATMENT OF CHILDREN AT MEDWAY SECURE TRAINING CENTRE

Background

The Medway Secure Training Centre (STC) was set up in 1998 to house children between the ages of 12 to 18 who are serving a custodial sentence or have been remanded into custody by the courts. It is capable of housing 67 children at a time. Right from its establishment in 1998, G4S has been responsible for managing the Centre. From as early as 1999, inspectors reported that the staff lacked the necessary skills, qualifications or experience to work with vulnerable and volatile children. This resulted in them overly relying on the use of restraint.

According to the Guardian, two whistleblowers had claimed in 2003 that inmates at Medway STC were being abused by staff and by the head of G4S children’s services there. Professor John Pitts, an expert in youth crimes and youth justice, had contacted the relevant authorities on behalf of the whistleblowers but received only one brief reply from one of the agencies he had contacted. An article by the Guardian in 2016 revealed how in 2010 a fifteen-year-old girl suffered a miscarriage at Medway without receiving any hospital care. It was only after a week and half that she was taken to a doctor. Thus, there were multiple allegations against the Medway STC prior to 2016.

G4S was also responsible for running some of the other Secure Training Centers (STC) in England. In 2004, the company came under the spotlight after a 15-year-old boy died in a horrific incident at the Rainsbrook STC. Even after multiple other incidents and the loss of contracts for other STCs (like Rainsbrook), in 2015, G4S again won the competition to manage Medway STC for another five years. A 2014 inspection by Ofsted (office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) had found that the Medway STC was “good with some outstanding features” and reported the Centre to be calm and orderly.

The Incidents

The incidents covered by the 2016 Panorama documentary were secretly filmed in 2015 and included instances like pressure being heavily applied on children’s neck, slapping a teenager several times in the head, using restraint techniques that had been authorized only for grave situations (methods which bodies like the UN Committee Against Torture and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons had recommended to be prohibited), and using foul language and threatening the children by the staff. The documentary also revealed how the staff tried to cover up their behavior by ensuring they were in areas not covered by the CCTV cameras and how G4S misrepresented the incidents to the government to avoid fines.

The use of force against children was prevalent, especially as a response to cases of self-harming by the children. In one particular incident, the staff prevented access to a hospital to one of the children for treatment after self-harm, citing the child’s “challenging behavior” as the reason for the refusal. An Ofsted report stated that about two incidents involving force use occur daily. There were also allegations of strip-searches being conducted on children, at times in the presence of security personnel who were not the same sex as the child in question.

A report, which was released after the allegations, stated that staff were often recruited to the STC even without prior experience with children. Staff behavior revealed that many were unclear and inconsistent in how they should manage the complex behavior of children and teenagers. Ofsted investigations found that staff were often “poorly trained and largely unqualified”.

There was high staff turnover, with 2015 marking a staff turnover of 60%. This high turnover of staff meant that the majority of them were inexperienced, nor did they receive the necessary support or supervision to execute their tasks to a good standard. Many were also promoted internally relatively quickly. Due to staff shortages, at times, children were forced to remain locked in their rooms, missing out on activities they had earned through good behavior. In one of Osfted’s investigations favoritism among staff was pointed out by some of the children. The tendency of staff to “give in to young people’s demands inappropriately because of a prevailing culture which is not strong enough to impose and maintain appropriate boundaries and rules” was pointed out.

Investigations

G4S attempted to stop the broadcast of the footage by BBC by arguing that the filming was unauthorized and illegal. The managing director of G4S children’s services referred the allegations to the Medway Child Protection team and police on 30 December. Following the Panorama program, sixteen people were arrested and seven of the staff members were suspended. The Youth Justice Board stated that it had increased its monitoring of the Centre.

By 2019 of the nine people that the Crown Protection Service (CPS) had decided to prosecute, seven were found not guilty and no verdict had been reached for the other two cases.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct requires that Personnel of Member and Affiliate companies take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and if force is used, it should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation. (Rules on the Use of Force : paragraph 29, Use of Force : paragraph 30-32).

Resources on Use of Force

Additionally, security personnel are only allowed to apprehend persons to defend themselves or others against an imminent threat of violence following an attack or crime against Company Personnel, clients, or property under their protection. Apprehension and detention must be consistent with international and national law, and all apprehended and detained persons must be treated humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law and international humanitarian law. (Detention: paragraph 33) 

Resources on Apprehending Persons 

Resources on Detention 

The Code instructs Member and Affiliate companies to provide a safe and healthy working environment and to adopt policies that support this. This includes policies that address psychological health, deter workplace violence, alcohol and drug abuse and other improper behavior. Companies must also ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect relevant staff in high-risk or life-threatening operations (paragraph 64).  

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.  

Resources on working conditions 

Impact

In 2016, following the BBC’s expose of the abuses at Medway STC, G4S lost the right to manage the Centre. It was then taken over by the government. Even when the STC was placed under government management, Ofsted investigations in 2019 found the quality of practice to have declined and that pain inflicting techniques continued to be used on children.  In March 2020, the Medway STC was shut down. 

Despite multiple allegations of abuses by G4S personnel in different Secure Training Centers (like in Medway and Rainsbrook), other STCs like the Oakhill STC continue to be run by it. This is despite the allegations raised by a whistleblower in 2021 against serious abuses at the Centre. An inspection of the Centre in 2023 by Ofsted concluded that it requires further improvement to be good.  

Discussion

Discuss how this case reveals the importance of training and vetting of personnel when it comes to staff having to work in volatile environments or with ‘special’ groups like children. 

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

This case was prepared by Shilpa Suresh, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

SEXUAL ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION AT YARL’S WOOD IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRE

Background

The Yarl’s Wood immigration removal center for women, located in Bedfordshire, has been managed by the private security firm Serco since 2007. It can house up to 400 women. In 2011, Sana, a Pakistani inmate, accused healthcare staff at the centre of misbehaving with her. Born in Lahore, Pakistan, at the age of 17, Sana was forced to marry an older family friend, following which the relocated to London. After her divorce, her second relationship also ended up being abusive. She then applied for asylum. After a routine immigration appointment in 2010, she was sent to the Yarl’s Wood centre. Reportedly, she feared that she would be raped at Yarl’s Wood.

Sana accused one of the healthcare staff of sexually assaulting her and reported how he repeatedly approached her. She was supported by one of the female guards, who in turn, ended up being criticised by her colleagues for failing to consider that Sana might be fabricating her testimony as the accused was clearly a “family man with strong religious beliefs”. The following police investigation was not satisfactory, with Sana’s interrogation lasting only for 30 minutes and an ordinary constable being sent instead of a specialist sex abuse officer. The police apparently pointed out the lack of independent witnesses and Sana claimed that she was accused of lying so that she would not be deported back to Pakistan. Shortly after, Sana was sent back to Pakistan.

In 2014, a 23-year-old inmate claimed unwanted sexual contact with two guards at the centre. Serco in turn hired reputation management lawyers. Being aware of Sana’s case and the existence of Serco’s internal inquiry report, The Guardian requested access to the report. Following a four-month legal battle between Serco and The Guardian, the company was forced to publish this internal report into the claims of repeated sexual assaults.

Serco’s handling of this case was accused of being inadequate and an external review was demanded. More women came forward after this, with claims of abuse dating as far back as 2007.

The Incident

One inmate who was detained from 2008-2009 stated that the guards would often flirt with the detainees and that some of the guards would give the impression that if the inmates slept with them, they would put in a good word for them. Another inmate claimed that some of the inmates would have sex with the guards in exchange for favours. Inmates who witnessed sexual contact were threatened with deportation. It is suspected that many victims were deported before being able to testify, thereby ensuring their silence.

The guards have been accused of breaking company policy and entering the inmates’ rooms at night. Some of the inmates reported that fights would break out occasionally between the inmates if they suspected each other of having sex with the same guard. Some also claimed witnessing guards dancing provocatively with the detainees.

Legal Aspects

Investigations

Sana’s case was settled by Serco with a modest amount of damages. According to data that Serco submitted to the Home Office, over 8 staff have been sacked or have resigned over inappropriate behaviour. However, Serco denied any allegation of widespread sexual misconduct between staff and inmates. They claimed that “on the occasion when a complaint of sexually inappropriate behaviour between staff and a resident was brought to our attention in 2012 the matter was properly investigated and the police were kept fully informed throughout. As a result, three members of staff were dismissed.”

The Home Office stated that any claims of misconduct would be thoroughly investigated. However, the Home Office denied the Observer access to the detention Centre. Even the United Nations expert into violence against women was refused permission to inspect the Centre by the Home Office.

According to a 2015 report by the HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, more detainees stated that they felt unsafe compared to the previous inspection. Four women reported sexually inappropriate comments and though no one reported direct experience of sexually inappropriate behaviour during the interviews, some inmates did mention a past incident where an inmate became pregnant due to a guard. In 2016, an independent investigation report was submitted to the Serco board. The report concluded that “there is no abusive culture at Yarl’s Wood”. However, a report by the National Audit Office (NAO) in 2016 found that “staff at the center were not adequately trained to deal with the particular concerns, issues and vulnerabilities of those in immigration detention”.

The International Code of Conduct

Under the International Code of Conduct companies cannot allow their personnel to engage in or benefit from sexual exploitation, abuse, or gender-based violence or crimes. Security companies must require their personnel to remain vigilant for all instances of sexual or gender-based violence, and report these instances to competent authorities. (Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (SEA) or Gender-Based Violence (GBV): paragraph 38)

Guidelines on Preventing and Addressing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Resources on Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

The Code also mandates that personnel of Member and Affiliate companies shall not engage in trafficking in persons and will remain vigilant for such instances and report it to Competent Authorities when discovered. The Code describes human trafficking as the “recruitment, harbouring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for (1) a commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age; or (2) labour or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, debt bondage, or slavery” (paragraph 39).

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55).

Resources on working conditions

The Code also requires that incident reports are to be made for any incident involving its personnel and the use of weapons, criminal acts, injury to persons, etc. (paragraph 63). It also mandates the establishment of a Grievance, Whistleblowing and related procedures to address claims brought by personnel or of third parties regarding the failure of the Company to respect the principles mentioned in the Code (paragraph 66-67).

Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

In 2016, Serco agreed to the recommendations made by the independent investigation report. They announced that they implemented changes like the introduction of body cameras for all front-line staff, hiring more female staff, reviewing of recruitment to ensure suitable candidates are selected and more.

In 2020, Serco was awarded a 200-million-pound contract by the Home Office to run two other immigration removal centres in the UK: Brook House and Tinsley House immigration centres.

Discussion

Discuss the importance of an effective Grievance, Whistleblowing and Complaint mechanism in preventing widespread sexual abuse. What factors contributed to the guards abusing their power and exploiting the vulnerabilities of the detainees? How can they be made less vulnerable to such exploitations?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

This case was prepared by Shilpa Suresh, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

BROOK HOUSE IMMIGRATION CENTRE SCANDAL

Background

The Brook House Immigration Centre is a privately managed detention centre in London which houses foreign nationals whose asylum applications have been rejected or those who have served prison sentences. It has a capacity of more than 500 men and has the same security as a category B prison. Category B prisons have the second highest level of security (after category A) and house inmates that do not pose an immediate risk to the public but may still require a higher level of security. At Brooke House, both inmates whose asylum claims have been rejected and those with prison sentences are detained together. Though the Centre was initially designed to hold detainees for less than 72 hours, they end up spending at least three months there on an average.

Brook House was initially managed by the company G4S, ever since it opened up in 2009 under a Home Office contract. Between 2022-2018, G4S reportedly made a gross profit of 12.3 million Euros from running the Centre.

In 2010, a report published by the then Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers stated that Brook House was “one of the least safe immigration detention facilities that had been inspected”. There was a rampant problem of violence, bullying and drugs at the Centre.  In 2009, a large number of the staff had resigned following a fire started by detainees. Staff reported feeling unsupported by their managers and often found it difficult to control the behaviour of detainees. This consequently resulted in them utilising higher use of force, separation and isolation methods, and restrictions to control detainees and curb their violent behaviour.

Things came to a head in 2017, when a BBC Panorama Documentary revealed the shocking conditions at Brook House, where detainees were reportedly harshly abused both verbally and physically. BBC obtained secretly filmed footage of the interactions at the Centre with the help of whistle-blower Callum Tulley, who had been working at the Centre since he was 18 years old.

The Incident

The documentary revealed a shocking culture of abuse and silence that existed within Brook House. Accounts of abuse at the Centre include G4S staff bullying and humiliating detainees, and addressing them in degrading language. Incidents include staff taunting a naked detainee, staff trying to “scare/freak out” another detainee who was under suicide watch, and using abusive and depredatory language at the detainees or while referring to them and excusing it as ‘banter’. The Brook House Inquiry report published on 2023 found at least 19 instances of mistreatment at the Centre, which are contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Allegedly, though only a minority of the staff were involved in these patterns of abuse from 2015-2017, the rest of the staff turned a blind eye. There was a culture of silence. Any staff member who showed empathy for the detainees were mocked for it. There was also rising concerns of widespread drug use, bullying and mental health.  Incidents of self-harm or threat of self-harm were reportedly very high.

Reportedly, there was a persistent staff shortage problem at the Centre which resulted in heavy workloads for the staff. This meant officers were often overworked, irritable, tired, desensitised and prone to taking out their frustrations on detainees. Callum states how often it was just two officers responsible for a single wing which houses more than 100 detainees. In some cases, officers were injured after being attacked by detainees and had to be taken to the hospital.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

Though no prosecutions were brought about after the police investigation, two former detainees were successful in their attempt to have a full independent investigation. A public inquiry of the conditions at the Centre was ordered. The first phase of public hearing began on 2021. On September 2023 The Brook House Inquiry Report was published with 33 recommendations. The Inquiry Chair has urged the Home Office to respond to the report within six months.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct requires that Personnel of Member and Affiliate companies take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and if force is used, it should be proportionate to the threat and appropriate to the situation. (Rules on the Use of Force : paragraph 29, Use of Force : paragraph 30-32).

Resources on Use of Force

The Code states that Member and Affiliate Companies will only, and require their personnel to treat all detained persons humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law and international humanitarian law, including prohibitions on cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (paragraph 33).

Resources on Detention

The Code instructs Member and Affiliate companies to provide a safe and healthy working environment and to adopt policies that support this. This includes policies that address psychological health, deter work-place violence, alcohol and drug abuse and other improper behaviour. Companies must also ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect relevant staff in high-risk or life-threatening operations (paragraph 64).

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45 to 49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Resources on working conditions

Impact

A series of investigations was launched following the documentary’s release. Inquiry into the abuse at the detention centre began on 2021. G4S is no longer responsible for the Centre. In 2020, the company Serco took over the Centre. Ten personnel of G4S were dismissed or had to resign due to this controversy.

G4S has also removed itself from the management of another immigration Centre called Tinsley House. By August 2019, it stopped operating accommodation centres for asylum seekers in the Midlands, north-east England and Norther Ireland after it was overlooked in the tendering process.

In 2021 BBC interviewed some of the detainees (current and former) at the Centre again. This time there was no allegations of violence but instead the concern was more on how Covid was handled by the Centre.

Discussion

What reasons could have sustained this culture of abuse at Brook House? If there was sufficient staff to handle the detainees, with reasonable working hours and conditions, would it have made a difference?

The grievance redressal system for the staff at the Centre was clearly lacking. How different would the outcome have been if the managers had addressed staff concern on time?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

This case was prepared by Shilpa Suresh, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. 

BIRMINGHAM PRISON

Background

The Birmingham Prison has a history of drug use by prisoners within the facility. Particularly, the prison had a problem with “new psychoactive substances” (NPSs), including “mamba” and “spice.” In 2015, the Prison and Probation Ombudsman (“PPO”) published a “learning lessons bulletin” regarding NPSs. The bulletin acknowledged several deaths of prisoners in which the prison was allegedly aware NPS use was a factor in the death, while discussing various patterns of behaviour and risks associated with NPS use.

Further, a report examined 19 deaths in the prison between April 2012 and September 2014 where the prisoner was strongly suspected to have used NPS drugs. By 2016, the number of similar prisoner deaths was at least 58.

Previously, the United Kingdom government has needed to interfere with prior contracts with G4S. In 2016, the government needed to step in at the end of G4S’s contract to run Medway Secure Training Centre after undercover reporters filmed staff allegedly mistreating children. Further, G4S lost its contract in 2015 to run Rainsbrook STC after prison inspectors graded the prison as “inadequate” and reporting that staff had allegedly behaved “extremely inappropriately” with young people.

The Incident

HMP

In 2018, the United Kingdom Ministry of Justice took immediate control of Birmingham Prison from G4S following an inspection revealing that prisoners allegedly used alcohol and drugs, engaged in violence, and lived in poor conditions surrounded by cockroaches, blood, and vomit. The chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, alleged that there had been “dramatic deterioration” of the prison since the last inspection in 2017.

 

The report further revealed that staff were fearful, experiencing bullying and occasional attacks. Appalled at the conditions of the prison, Clarke stated “There had clearly been an abject failure of contract management and delivery…”

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) then decided to run the prison for six months before deciding whether they could grant control back to G4S. However, after the six month period, the HM Prison and Probation decided to run the prison permanently.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

On October 11, 2019, Angela Carr, the mother of a prisoner, Andrew, who died at Birmingham Prison from use of cannabinoid (an NPS), brought a lawsuit against G4S in the High Court of Justice. Andrew Carr had died during the period that G4S was in charge of running the prison.  The lawsuit claimed that G4S breached two duties arising from the right to life under the Human Rights Act.

Ms. Carr alleged that an officer saw Andrew on the ground, laying on his side. Instead of calling a Code Blue, the officer allegedly continued to check on the rest of the prisoners. Allegedly, five minutes later, after noticing that Andrew was in the same position, the officer went to get assistance to open the door. Almost 20 minutes after the officer first noticed Andrew on the floor, a nurse observed that Andrew´s lips were purple, and found no signs of life.

Interviews of employees involved in the incident allegedly showed that they were aware (in addition to a general awareness among prison staff) of the method of transport of drugs that Andrew used to obtain the drugs, utilising the prison sewage pipe system. The coroner involved in Andrew´s death had expressed concerns that it was known for approximately five years that drugs were passed through the sewage system, but no action had been taken to address this before Andrew´s death.

In March 2020, G4S sought an order striking the claim and granting summary judgement to end the litigation. Under the United Kingdom’s legal framework, a court may strike out a claim if there are no reasonable grounds for bringing that claim. Further, a court may grant summary judgement if the claim has no reasonable prospects of success, and if there are no other compelling reasons why it should be disposed of at trial.

In determining the motion, the court concluded that there was a general and operational duty at issue. A general duty arises where a State has assumed responsibility for an individual by imprisoning him, in particular, the State assumes responsibility for his safety and welfare. The operational duty arises where there is an allegation that authorities have violated their positive general duty to protect the right to life; it must be established that the authorities knew or ought to have known at that time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to life of an identified individual, and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which might have been expected to avoid that risk.

Given the circumstances, including the alleged awareness of the system of transport of drugs, the court determined that there were reasonable prospects of success and reasonable grounds for bringing the claims that G4S breached the above-described duties. The judge accepted Ms. Carr’s argument that the responsibilities for complying with the general duty would be shared between the state, and the contractor, G4S. Thus, G4S’S applications for strike out and summary judgement were dismissed.

The International Code of Conduct

The International Code of Conduct prescribes that its Member and Affiliate Companies will only guard, transport, or question detainees if: (a) the Company has been specifically contracted to do so by a state; and (b) its Personnel are trained in the applicable national and international law. Furthermore, security personnel have to treat all detained persons humanely and consistent with their status and protections under applicable human rights law or international humanitarian law, including in particular prohibitions on torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (paragraph 33)

The Code requires stringent selection and vetting of personnel, assessment of performance and duties (paragraphs 45-49), and training of personnel of the Code and relevant international law, including human rights and international criminal law (paragraph 55). Meeting the requirements of the Code of Conduct, can help private security companies and their clients ensure that private security personnel are qualified, trained, supported, informed, and responsible.

Impact

HMPSS agreed to a settlement with G4S of £9.9 million to cover the cost of the “step-in” action. In order to improve standards at the prison, the prison introduced a search team to detect and deter the bringing of contraband into the prison, additional prison officers, and additional training for staff. This fine contributed to a decrease in revenues of G4S Care & Justice Services UK from £38m in 2017 to £21m in 2018.

Discussion

What are some special recruiting, training, and vetting considerations in providing security for a prison environment?

How can private security personnel safety influence the quality of their services?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman