Medical Justice has condemned Home Office proposals to reform safeguards for vulnerable individuals in immigration detention as “shocking,” cautioning that the changes will weaken rather than strengthen existing protections and fail to address longstanding systemic failures.
In a statement released on Tuesday, the charity warned that the proposed measures “will inevitably lead to more vulnerable people being detained for longer periods, with an increased risk of harm, including harm that meets the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3.”
Border Security and Asylum Minister Alex Norris announced the major policy overhaul in correspondence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in March, as EIN previously reported. The Home Office plans to rename the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy as “Assessing Detention for Vulnerable People” and shift to an “evidence of needs” model that focuses on evaluating whether detention facilities can meet a detainee’s requirements.
The government also announced modifications to Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules, which currently requires medical professionals in immigration removal centers (IRCs) to submit reports in three specific circumstances: when detention may adversely affect health, when a detainee shows suicidal intentions, and when there are indications of possible torture victimization. These reports currently trigger automatic Home Office detention reviews.
Under the proposed changes, these three categories would be consolidated into a single reporting requirement, with reports only necessary when a medical practitioner believes “a person’s needs may not be met in detention.” Medical Justice argues this creates “a far higher threshold” and encourages “a ‘wait and see’ approach leading to those at risk of harm in detention being left to deteriorate until such time as their needs become unmanageable in detention.”
The charity’s concerns are supported by the December High Court judgment in R (AH and IS) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 3269 (Admin), which found the government breached its Article 3 “systems duty” regarding Rule 35 operations at Brook House IRC between July 2023 and March 2024. Medical Justice noted this case reflects issues the organization has documented “for over 20 years,” including insufficient numbers of Rule 35(1) and Rule 35(2) reports and poor coordination between Rule 35 procedures and the Assessment Care in Detention and Teamwork (ACDT) suicide prevention process.
The charity pointed out that both claimants AH and IS were placed on ACDT monitoring with “constant supervision” while detained at Brook House IRC, yet neither received Rule 35(1) or Rule 35(2) reports. Citing the judgment, Medical Justice highlighted Mrs Justice Jefford’s finding that “The statistics as to the numbers of Rule 35(1) and (2) reports speak for themselves particularly when compared with the numbers of ACDTs and constant supervisions. It is inconceivable that if the system were operating effectively, the numbers would be so low.”
The judge concluded there was “a clear and persistent picture of a failure of the system intended to protect Article 3 rights of adults at riskβ¦ characterised by a failure to apply properly or at all the provisions of Rule 35.” Medical Justice noted that the Court found “the system was capable of working effectively but was not working effectively,” and despite the judgment, the charity continues observing safeguarding failures with no significant improvements since the period when AH and IS were detained.
The statement also referenced the forthcoming inquest into ThΓ©ophile Kaliviotis’s death at Brook House IRC in 2024, where family lawyers argued at a pre-inquest hearing that staff failed to comply with Rule 35 procedures. Medical Justice additionally cited testimony from the inquest into Frank Ospina’s 2023 suicide at Colnbrook IRC, where the Head of Healthcare stated that if a Rule 35(2) report had been completed before his death, “then we wouldn’t have had that outcome.”
Medical Justice has called on the Home Office to abandon the planned reforms and instead “ensure that existing safeguards are properly and effectively implemented, with a focus on preventing harm, rather than only responding once it has already occurred.”
Source: Electronic Immigration Network
Lawsentis is regulated by the Immigration Advice Authority (IAA) at Level 3. If you need professional immigration advice or assistance with your immigration matter, contact us today.