Category: Selección y Comprobación de los Antecedentes del Personal (Párrafos 45-49 del Código)

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

ASESINATO RACISTA POR GUARDIAS DE SUPERMERCADO

Contexto

En 1888, Brasil fue el último país del hemisferio occidental en abolir la esclavitud. En el momento de la abolición, la población de Brasil era mayoritariamente negra o mestiza hasta la década de 1930, cuando una afluencia de inmigrantes europeos llegó a Brasil en busca de mano de obra. Durante esta época, se utilizaron métodos pseudocientíficos antinegros para «demostrar» científicamente la superioridad biológica blanca. Estas teorías (claramente falsas) fueron ampliamente refutadas a mediados del siglo XX, pero se siguieron utilizando para propagar el racismo en las políticas sociales y políticas.

Hoy en día, estas políticas abiertamente racistas ya no existen, y la mayoría de los brasileños reconocen los prejuicios raciales y la discriminación que aún persisten en Brasil. Sin embargo, el análisis estadístico revela un trato dispar de los brasileños no blancos en múltiples ámbitos de la sociedad. Por ejemplo, de media, los brasileños no blancos ganan la mitad de ingresos que la población blanca de Brasil, y los brasileños negros tienen casi tres veces más probabilidades de ser víctimas de homicidio que los demás.

Mientras que los negros y mestizos representan alrededor del 57% de la población de Brasil, constituyen el 74% de las víctimas de violencia letal, y el 79% de los asesinados por la policía. En el ámbito empresarial, los brasileños negros ocupan menos del 5% de los puestos en los consejos de administración de las empresas. Por último, persiste la discriminación en forma de desaires, agresiones e insultos raciales.

El Incidente

El 19 de noviembre de 2020, en Porto Alegre, Brasil, una empleada de un supermercado Carrefour llamó a seguridad después de que un hombre supuestamente amenazara con agredirla. Las imágenes del incidente parecen mostrar que el hombre, João Alberto Silveira Freitas, recibió un puñetazo en la cara, y posteriormente un rodillazo, por parte de dos guardias de seguridad blancos, lo que le causó la muerte. Según el instituto forense estatal, la causa de la muerte fue la asfixia. Según la investigación preliminar, Freitas fue golpeado durante más de cinco minutos antes de morir.

Los transeúntes filmaron el incidente, que fue ampliamente compartido en las redes sociales. Otro empleado parecía estar junto a los guardias de seguridad, filmando el incidente.

Aspectos Jurídicos

Tareas de Supervisión         

Según la investigadora de homicidios Vanessa Pitrez, la supervisora de Carrefour Adriana Alves Dutra tenía autoridad sobre los guardias, lo que implicaba el deber de impedir que golpearan a Freitas. Por lo tanto, según Pitrez, esta autoridad podría haber dado lugar a que Dutra fuera condenada por homicidio como coautora.

El Código Internacional de Conduct

El Código Internacional de Conducta exige que el personal de las empresas miembros y afiliadas tome todas las medidas razonables para evitar el uso de la fuerza, y si se utiliza la fuerza, debe ser proporcional a la amenaza y adecuada a la situación. (Normas sobre el Uso de la Fuerza : párrafo 29, Uso de la Fuerza : párrafos 30-32)

Recursos sobre el Use de la Fuerza (en inglés)

Al aprehender a personas, todas las personas aprehendidas deben recibir un trato humano y acorde con su condición y con la protección que les brindan las normas de derechos humanos o el derecho internacional humanitario aplicables, incluidas, en particular, las prohibiciones de la tortura u otros tratos o penas crueles, inhumanos o degradantes (párrafo 34).

Recursos para la Detención de Personas (en inglés)

Además, el Código Internacional de Conducta exige una rigurosa selección e investigación de antecedentes del personal, la evaluación de su desempeño y funciones (párrafos 45 a 49), y la formación del personal en el Código y el derecho internacional pertinente, incluidos los derechos humanos y el derecho penal internacional (párrafo 55). Cumplir los requisitos del Código de Conducta puede ayudar a las empresas de seguridad privada y a sus clientes a garantizar que el personal de seguridad privada está cualificado, formado, respaldado, informado y es responsable.

Impacto

Al día siguiente de la muerte de Freitas, Carrefour SA declaró que «lamentaba profundamente lo que calificaba de muerte brutal», e indicó que Carrefour SA tomaba medidas para garantizar que los responsables fueran castigados legalmente. Carrefour declaró que rescindiría el contrato con la empresa de seguridad, despediría al empleado encargado de la tienda en el momento del incidente y cerraría la tienda en señal de respeto.

Además, el Presidente y Director General de Carrefour, Alexandre Bompard, utilizó Twitter para declarar que Carrefour había tomado medidas internas en Brasil. Bompard pidió que se revisara la formación de los empleados y subcontratistas en materia de seguridad, diversidad y valores de tolerancia.

El supermercado Carrefour creó un fondo de 5 millones de dólares para combatir el racismo en Brasil, y declaró que los brasileños negros representarían al menos el 50% de las nuevas contrataciones anuales.

Demandas y Acuerdos

Poco después del incidente, el Estado brasileño demandó a Carrefour por 38 millones de dólares en concepto de daños y perjuicios por la muerte de Freitas. La demanda también pedía al tribunal el cierre de la tienda, «con el objetivo de reducir el riesgo de actos hostiles que pudieran producirse durante las protestas». Por último, la demanda exigía la creación de un plan de lucha contra el racismo y el trato discriminatorio por parte del minorista en Porto Alegre.

En junio de 2021, Carrefour llegó a un acuerdo con la Fiscalía Federal y otras partes para pagar 115 reales (22 millones de dólares estadounidenses). Este acuerdo puso fin a todos los pleitos relacionados con la aplicación y ejecución de medidas antirracistas contra la diversidad racial.

Precios de las Acciones

Tras la muerte de Freitas, Carrefour Brasil fue eliminada de un índice de empresas con las mejores políticas medioambientales, sociales y de gobernanza gestionado por S&P Dow Jones y B3. Apenas cuatro días después de la muerte de Freitas, el precio de las acciones de Carrefour Brasil se desplomó un 6% en las operaciones de la tarde.

Investigación Criminal

Finalmente, los dos hombres que presuntamente golpearon a Freitas fueron detenidos e investigados por homicidio, debido a la asfixia de la víctima y a su incapacidad para defenderse.

Protestas, Violencia y Daños Materiales

Al día siguiente de la muerte de Freitas, los manifestantes empezaron a repartir pegatinas con el logotipo de Carrefour manchado de sangre, pidieron el boicot de la cadena y mostraron carteles de «Black Lives Matter» (Las vidas de los negros importan). Esa misma noche, la protesta se tornó violenta y los manifestantes rompieron escaparates y vehículos de reparto. Los manifestantes asaltaron y destrozaron el supermercado donde se produjo el incidente, y 200 manifestantes se reunieron frente a otro establecimiento de Carrefour en Río de Janeiro.

Debate

¿Cómo se aborda la cuestión del racismo y otras formas de discriminación en el proceso de selección del nuevo personal de seguridad?

¿Cómo pueden la contratación y la formación del personal de seguridad privada incorporar conceptos de diversidad, sensibilidad e inclusión?

Incidentes Relacionados

  • Mina de Escobal: Violenta Represión de las Protestas Indígenas
  • Violenta Represión de Mineros Ilegales que Desemboca en Litigios
  • La Masacre de la Plaza Nisour
  • Represión de las Protestas contra la Mina de Río Blanco
  • Disturbios por la Detención de Inmigrantes en la Isla de Manus
  • Violencia y Agresiones Sexuales en las Granjas de Kakuzi

Fuentes

 

 

Caso preparado por Madison Zeeman

PULSE NIGHTCLUB: THE SECURITY GUARD KILLER

Background

Omar Mateen had allegedly previously been interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2013 and 2014 after reports of extremist behaviour and connections to terrorism. Mateen had falsely claimed to be associated with the Boston marathon bombers, in addition to claiming connection to both Al Qaeda and Hezbollah. However, these allegations were determined to be insubstantial. Throughout these FBI investigations, Mateen was still allowed to work at G4S.

Mateen was allegedly only psychologically evaluated once at the start of his employment with G4S, and not again once the company was put on notice that he had been interviewed by the FBI.

One of Mateen´s former co-workers alleged that he “saw it coming” based on Mateen´s behaviour, which involved talking about killing people “all the time,” and always being angry. Allegedly, Mateen made it clear he did not like “blacks, women, lesbians, and jews.” The former co-worker allegedly complained multiple times to G4S about these comments, and ultimately quit his job due to harassment from Mateen. G4S continued to employ Mateen, who obtained a “security officer” licence to buy firearms in addition to his state licence and concealed carry permit.

Prior to this incident, G4S had previously been accused of improperly vetting its employees. One incident involved a former paratrooper who killed two colleagues in Iraq, allegedly claiming to be the “antichrist.” An official investigation revealed that G4S did not properly vet his psychological health.

The Incident

On June 12, 2016, Pulse Nightclub, an LGBTQ nightclub, was hosting its popular Latin Night. Just after 2:00 AM that night, more than 300 people were inside the nightclub when Mateen opened fire near the entrance. After an off-duty police officer engaged in gunfire with Mateen, and several police officers with SWAT training exchanged gunfire with Mateen, Mateen was allegedly able to continue to move through the club. At 2:35 in the morning, Mateen allegedly called 911 and professed his “allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.” After police had cornered Mateen in a bathroom area, the situation became a hostage situation, and Mateen spoke to negotiators three times. At 5:02 in the morning, Orlando police triggered a controlled detonation and smashed through the wall of the club with an armoured vehicle. Mateen was killed after engaging in a gun battle with about a dozen officers. At the time of the shooting, the Pulse attack was the deadliest mass shooting in United States history, with 49 fatalities.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

A lawsuit was filed by victims, survivors, and representatives alleging that G4S, the security company that provided firearms training to Mateen, should be held liable for damages resulting from the attack. The lawsuit alleged that the security firm ignored his comments supporting violence prior to the mass shooting, and failed to remove his service weapon and recommend his firearms licence be removed when they should have.

However, a judge threw out the lawsuit in April 2019, writing that G4S did not have civil liability for the attack because Mateen was not working for the firm at the time of the attack.

The International Code of Conduct

Further, the International Code of Conduct 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.

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

Settlements and Fines

G4S, who employed Mateen, was fined $151,400 by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for allegedly  providing inaccurate psychological testing information on forms that allowed employees to carry guns. The Department discovered that G4S had listed the name of a psychologist who no longer practised as the screener on Mateen´s form, in addition to more than 1,500 other employees over a 10 year period.

The amount was the largest on record under the specific state law.

Stock Prices

Once it was revealed that Omar Mateen, the shooter at Pulse Nightclub, was a G4S employee, shares in G4S fell dramatically. The G4S shares dropped by as much as 7.5%. When G4S´s shares dropped, it wiped out about $280 million in company value.

Discussion

What role does continuous psychological evaluation play in the vetting of security personnel?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman

MIGRATION DETENTION RIOTS AT MANUS ISLAND

Background

Manus Island in Papua New Guinea was one of three offshore immigration detention centres used by Australia. Under Australia’s immigration policy, every immigrant arriving to Australia is to be detained and processed, with those found to be legitimate refugees allowed to resettle in Papua New Guinea or Cambodia.

Manus Island was originally opened to house asylum seekers who came to Australia by boat in 2001. Many asylum seekers started attempting the journey to Australia by sea, and more than 1,200 people drowned trying to get to Australia. In order to limit the amount of people arriving by boat to seek asylum, the policy was changed so that any asylum seeker arriving by boat would have no chance of being allowed to settle in Australia.

Since the opening of Manus Island, the centre has been criticised for high rates of depression and anxiety among detainees, under-sourced facilities and poor living conditions, and a lack of access for human rights organisations.

In an Australian Parliament, a senate committee recognized several factors that gave rise to the February 2014 riots, including the size and composition of the Manus Island centre; tension between asylum seekers and locals; the condition of the facilities at the centre; inadequate security infrastructure at the centre; and uncertainty about refugee status and resettlement arrangements.

Prior to the 2015 riots, it was reported that refugees believed their lives were endangered due to the Australian government’s plans to move detainees to Lorengau, the capital of Manus province. Refugees allegedly believed they would be attacked by local people if they moved to the capital; some refugees were so frightened that they refused to leave the centre.

The Incident

In February 2014, unrest at Manus Island resulted in 77 injuries, one by a gunshot, and one death from a head injury. There had been escalating protests at the centre for a few days, with the protestors breaking through fences a few days into the protest. Allegedly, on the first day of the demonstrations, refugees were hopeful that immigration authorities would tell them how much longer they would have to stay at Manus Islands. When they did not receive an answer to this question, a riot started the same night.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison claimed that asylum seekers initially caused the disturbance and broke out of the centre, but refugee advocates and people inside the facility claimed that police and locals entered the compounds with weapons and attacked detainees. This caused asylum seekers to flee outside of the compound.

In January 2015, over 100 asylum seekers went on a hunger strike, protesting their treatment at the detention centre. A few days later, more asylum seekers joined the protest, while running water allegedly became unavailable at Manus Island. Local security guards went on strike after going unpaid.

After a few days, strikers started to collapse without food or water, with other strikers starting to consume harmful materials in protest. Around this time, riot police entered the detention centre. International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) staff converted the staff cafeteria into an emergency medical centre, treating over a hundred detainees.

The next day, multiple strikers were allegedly taken to the “Chauka” solitary confinement unit. In response, an urgent petition to the UN special rapporteurs on human rights was lodged overnight by refugee advocates. The same day, it was reported that security personnel started to round people up, attempting to end the protest. The next day, guards in riot gear allegedly entered Manus Island compounds, attempting to end the protest by force, taking alleged riot “ringleaders” into the Chauka isolation unit.

Legal Aspects

Court cases

After the riots, former G4S guards filed a lawsuit against the company and the government, alleging that the two parties were responsible for the failures related to the riots. Specifically, the former guards claimed that G4S and the government inadequately trained staff, and did not make personal protective equipment available to them. This, the guards alleged, resulted in their physical and mental harm.

Australia has a duty of care to asylum seekers under Australian law, and may be vicariously liable for any breach of this duty.

In support of the former guards´ claims, emails were shown to the court that showed G4S´ requests for additional 100 security guards at the site, warning there was increasing awareness of the possibility of conflict.

In July 2021, the parents of asylum seeker Reza Barati sued the Australian government over his death during the February 2014 detention centre riots. It was alleged that Mr. Barati was beaten to death by guards and other workers. Specifically, court documents stated that Mr. Barati was returning to his room after gunshots were fired into his compound, when a Manus Island worker in a G4S uniform hit him from behind with a length of timber spiked with nails. Then, up to 10 men kicked him in the head.

Mr. Barati’s parents claimed that the Australian government’s negligence, in addition to G4S negligence, were to blame for Mr. Barati’s death. The Barati family alleged that tensions had increased in the six months leading up to the violent riots, and the number of detainees increased tenfold, with over 500 more detainees living at the centre than the amount the centre was built to house. Thus, Mr. Barati´s parents alleged that the government and G4S should have had notice of the likelihood of violent protests occuring, and that the parties should have ensured staff were properly trained and that the centre was equipped to deal with outbreaks of violence.

Earlier, two men were convicted for Mr. Barati’s death and sentenced for 10 years in jail by Papua New Guinea’s national court.

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 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).

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.

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

Investigations

In an Australian Parliament report, a Senate Committee stated that the factors giving rise to the February 2014 incident should have been known to Australia and the contracts managing the centre. The committee concluded that the Australian government therefore failed in its duty to protect asylum seekers from harm.

The Report found that many G4S staff continued to defend asylum seekers at great risk to their own safety during the riots, however, the Report recognized that many G4S staff and local residents used excessive force with the asylum seekers, or were involved in violence against the asylum seekers.

The Report concluded that asylum seekers suffered numerous violations of basic human rights during the February 2014 riots, including the right to life and the right to security of person.               

Settlements and Fines

By September 2022, fifteen former employees of G4S reached a confidential settlement totalling millions of dollars with G4S and the Australian Government.

In October 2021, Australia ended offshore immigration processing on Papua New Guinea. The Manus Island centre was found to be illegal and ordered shut by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in 2016, and Australia was forced to pay $70m in compensation to those unlawfully detained. Those still detained in Papua New Guinea were allowed to transfer to the Nauru processing centre, otherwise they were offered a “permanent migration pathway … including access to citizenship, long-term support, settlement packages and family reunification”.

Discussion

The Australian parliament, in a report, determined that the factors giving rise to the incidents should have been known to the Manus Island managing personnel. How can private security companies and their personnel be aware of and address risks of violence and conflict?

What are the specific responsibilities of private security personnel when engaging in dealing with people in vulnerable situations such as detained migrants?

Related incidents

Sources

 

 

Case prepared by Madison Zeeman