Proper procedures required for addressing compliants by detainees at Cedars and all Immigration Removal Centres

The request was successful.

Dear Home Office,

This FOI seeks to discover the proper procedures that should be used if a detainee makes a complaint to any matter while detained either travelling to or from an Immigration Removal Centre and detained in a removal centre.
The reason for asking is that I would consider it normal that proper documentation is held from start to finish of any complaint and its absence is I think a concern to the public.

Below is the response to an earlier FOI (Your REF: FOI 29532) also available on whatdotheyknow.com at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Thich has led to this FOI as it was written that “I can also confirm that no additional paperwork is held relating to the three complaints; therefore there is nothing further that we can provide you with in response to your request.”

Additionally for your information the first tier tribunal has allowed my appeal concerning proper redaction which you might find gives you an opportunity to save time to the Home office and money to Tax payers if you can see how the panel see’s the data protection act as not being a carte blanch to this type of FOI request.

It is copied below and available here. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...
In the 3rd annotation.

___________________________________________________

IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL Case No. EA/2013/0188
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
INFORMATION RIGHTS
ON APPEAL FROM:
The Information Commissioner’s
Decision Notice No: FS50485809
Dated: 29 July 2013
Appellant: EDWARD SURRIDGE
Respondent: INFORMATION COMMISIONER
On the papers: FIELD HOUSE
Date: 8 JANUARY 2014
Date of decision: 29 JANUARY 2014
Before
ROBIN CALLENDER SMITH
Judge
and
DR HENRY FITZHUGH and NARENDRA MAKANJI
Tribunal Members
Representations:
For the Appellant: Mr Edward Surridge
For the Respondent: Richard Bailey, Solicitor for the Information Commissioner
- 2 -
Subject matter:
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Absolute exemptions
- Personal Data s.40
- 3 -
IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL Case No. EA//2013/0188
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
INFORMATION RIGHTS
DECISION OF THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
The Tribunal allows the appeal in part and substitutes the following decision notice in
place of the decision notice dated 29 July 2013.
- 4 -
IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL Case No. EA//2013/0188
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
INFORMATION RIGHTS
SUBSTITUTED DECISION NOTICE
Dated: 29 January 2014
Public authority: The Home Office
Address of Public authority: 2 Marsham Street
London

Name of Complainant: Mr Edward Surridge
The Substituted Decision
For the reasons set out in the Tribunal’s determination, the Tribunal allows the
appeal in part and substitutes the following decision notice in place of the decision
notice dated 29 July 2013.
The relevant public authority, the Home Office, has 31 days to provide all the
information currently redacted save the names of those who were the subject of the
one incident involving the use of force at the Tinsley House Immigration Removal
Centre, the time and date it occurred, the nationality of the family involved and its
national language which formed part of the Appellant’s information request.
Action Required As detailed above.
Robin Callender Smith
Judge
29 January 2014
- 5 -
IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL Case No. EA/2013/0188
GENERAL REGULATORY CHAMBER
INFORMATION RIGHTS
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
1. The Appellant requested a copy of an incident report regarding the use of
force against a particular individual at the Tinsley House Immigration
Removal Centre.
2. The Home Office originally withheld the requested information in its
entirety on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA, the personal data
exemption.
3. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the Home Office
disclosed a redacted version of the report. The Commissioner is satisfied
that the redacted parts of the report are exempt on the basis of section
40(2).
The request for information
4. Having received a response to a previous FOI request regarding
complaints made by detainees at the Cedars Family Detention House
(the Cedars), the Appellant submitted the following request to the Home
Office on 28 September 2012 :
Previously earlier with this FOI you have explained that the large
number of complaints has given difficulties to sharing the requested
information.
You now offer 3 complaints [and the Appellant then focussed more
specifically on the one involving Tinsley House which arose from the
Home Office response in the further indented quoted figures below].
Please provide all the ibnformation [sic] on the incident using force and
the 86 complaints of 2011.
- 6 -
"During our reporting period there was only one reported
occasion where the need for use of force was used in the
Family Suite.
Type of Complaint 2011 2010 2009
Food 25 2
Missing property 15 20
Medical 9 9
Staff conduct 4 6
Fellow detainees 8
Other 25 10
TOTAL 86 47 55"
5. The Appellant was contacted by the Home Office on 24 October 2012. It
explained that it needed further time to consider the balance of the public
interest test. Then, on 21 November 2012, the Home Office indicated to
the Appellant that it was prepared to disclose redacted copies of the 86
complaints made by detainees at Tinsley House, along with the
responses to these complaints.
6. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation, on 9 July 2013,
the Home Office provided the Appellant with a redacted version of the
information relating to the incident [involving the use of force].
7. It explained that redactions had been made on the basis of section 40(2).
The complaint to the Information Commissioner
8. The Appellant originally contacted the Commissioner on 14 February
2013 in order to complain about the Home Office's handing of his
request. Following the Home Office's further disclosure of information on
9 July 2013, the Commissioner established with the Appellant that -
although he did not dispute the Home Office’s decision to redact the
individual's names from the requested information, he considered the
level of redaction was excessive.
- 7 -
9. The Commissioner considered whether the information redacted from the
incident report (with the exception of the individual's names) was exempt
from disclosure on the basis of section 40(2) of FOIA.
10. Section 40(2) of FOIA stated that personal data was exempt from
disclosure if its disclosure would breach any of the data protection
principles contained within the Data Protection Act (DPA). The Home
Office argued that disclosure of the redacted information would be unfair
and thus breach the first data protection principle which stated that:
Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular,
shall not be processed unless -
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 is met, and
(b) the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions
in Schedule 3 is also met.
11. For section 40(2) to be engaged the information being withheld had to
constitute 'personal data ' which is defined by the DPA as :
...data which relate to a living individual who can be identified
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the
possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the
data controller,
and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any
indication of the intention of the data controller or any other person in
respect of the individual.
12. The Home Office explained that the 'Tinsley House Independent
Monitoring Board 2011 Annual Report', which was published on the
Ministry of Justice website provided a summary of the incident in
question, confirming force was used against a mother holding her child
due to her aggressive behaviour. The Home Office confirmed that the
unredacted parts of the report in the version that was provided to the
Appellant was the information that was used to create that summary.
- 8 -
13. The Commissioner appreciated that the Appellant had accepted that
redaction was necessary in respect of the names of the individuals
concerned.
14. The Commissioner had considered whether disclosure of the report,
simply with the individuals' names redacted, would still constitute the
disclosure of personal data. Could the redacted information still be used
to identify the family in question even without their names being
disclosed?
15. He concluded that it could still identify them and that it would breach the
first data protection principle. Individuals being processed at detention
centres such as Tinsley House had a strong and reasonable expectation
that details of their detention would not be disclosed under FOIA.
The appeal to the Tribunal
16. Précising the Appellant’s grounds of Appeal and arguments, he believes
that there has been over-redaction.
17. He puts it succinctly:
The claim by the Home Office that 40 (2) of the FOIA should apply to
such a dispiritingly amount is in my view clearly translatable as using
the law to hide bad news from the public and by doing so undermines
its high aims. Not sharing threat present shared information could also
show an aim to keep the information from the public eye.
18. He noted that there had been 20 unnatural deaths of detainees whilst
detained within or travelling to or from removal centres to date with many
more attempted suicides and acts of self-harm. The use of forcible
restraint whilst detained caused the death of a detainee.
19. It was very much in the public interest that there was as little redaction of
identifying detail in this case as possible.
- 9 -
The questions for the Tribunal
20. Has there been over-redaction in respect of the requested information
supplied to the Appellant?
21. Does the public interest justify greater disclosure of the personal data in
this case?
Evidence
22. The Tribunal has seen all of unredacted information in the incident
report and been able to compare it to the redacted version supplied to
the Appellant.
23. The Tribunal is conscious that, inevitably, this portion of the process
excludes the Appellant. However the Tribunal applies rigorous critical
standards in respect of the public interest in this area.
Conclusion and remedy
24. The Appellant believes that the currently redacted information could be
disclosed because, with the names redacted, there would be sufficient
anonymisation for the report not to reveal personal data.
25. The Tribunal, having looked at the totality of the data currently disclosed
and the information and personal data withheld, has concluded that – by
keeping redacted the names of those involved, the time/date on which
the incident occurred, the nationality of the family involved and the
family’s national language - the personal data of those involved in the
incident is properly and proportionately protected.
26. There is a clear public interest in members of the public generally
understanding the kind of event that can occur in immigration detention
- 10 -
centres both at the time this event occurred and as immigration issues
remain a focus of general interest.
27. The Tribunal finds that, by keeping redacted the information mentioned in
Paragraph 24, it would not be possible for the individuals concerned to
be identified save among themselves as they already know that
information.
28. The Tribunal is aware that – in addition to the Data Protection Act
principles – there are particular duties in respect of the welfare of
children and their best interests imposed on courts generally by s.55 of
the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 linked with respect for
their ECHR Article 8 private life rights.
29. These have been emphasised particularly by Baroness Hale in her
phrase in the Supreme Court decision of ZN (Tanzania) [2011] UKSC 4
that the “best interests of the child must be a primary consideration. This
means that they must be considered first.”
30. To name the family in question and identify its nationality could
potentially prejudice the best interests and welfare of the children of the
family.
31. The proportionate approach is to permit the generality of the information
to be revealed without such identifiers.
32. The incident and details here – without the personal information that will
remain redacted (and this includes the identities of all involved both staff
and family) - remains sufficiently generic but yet allows the public to have
an understanding of what happened within the event itself.
33. Our decision is unanimous.
- 11 –

Additionally I FOI request all pertinent information as to what procedures should be followed if proper investigation is shown not to have taken place to immigration detainee’s complaints.

Yours faithfully,

Edward Surridge

FOI Requests, Home Office

Thank you for contacting the FOI Requests mailbox.

Your message has been logged and will be dealt with shortly.

We aim to provide a response to all FOI requests within 20 working days.

If your message is with regard to an existing FOI case or is a general
query please ensure you have left any file references and contact details.

 

Thank you.

 

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Freedom Of Information Team ( IND ), Home Office

Dear Edward Surridge

Thank you for your recent e mail concerning the above matter. We are dealing with your enquiry and will respond in due course.

Regards

Information Management Services (IMS),
Corporate Services
Home Office
12th Floor Lunar House, 40 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR9 2BY
www.gov.uk/home-office

show quoted sections

DS FOI, Home Office

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Surrudge,

 

Please find attached our response to your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

 

Regards

 

David Goggin

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Dear Mr Goggin,

The Information sent consists of files linked to files linked to files. The reply by your office indicates a thought or possibly belief that the information I requested is within the mass of documentation shared.
This unhelpfull action has happened previously.

Surely you should know if this is true and be able to assist the FOI request in question by indicating where in the mass of documentation the pertinent information is.

I request the pertinent information is indicated to its location in the next few working days hence avoiding another internal review and or possible formal complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Edward Surridge

DS FOI, Home Office

Dear Mr Surridge,

Thank you for your email and I'm sorry you are having trouble locating the document on the complaints procedure. There has been some updating recently on the Home Office website and everything has now been transferred to the Gov.Uk website so the link below will take you directly to the document you require.

Regards

David Goggin

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

show quoted sections