Michal Netyks

A. Under PSI 52/2011 Annex K Prison Custody Officers (PCO) are to only act as a postman without giving advice when serving papers related to deportation. The Court heard that PCO do not give legal advice but often have to explain the effect of such documentation such as the authority to further detain IS91 (which in this case had to be delivered before a IS91R was received by the prison). Documentation is served without an immigration Officer present and those charged with this role would be more effective if they were provided with a training package, making them aware of the deportation process. The Court is of the view that only the Home Office can deliver this training. B. Foreign National Prisoners liable for deportation who are not in an Immigration Detention Centre currently have no access to a duty lawyer scheme. It is important that such subjects are not treated less favourably than those in an Immigration detention centre. This could be addressed by providing free legal advice on immigration matters from duty lawyers at a minimum via the prison estate pin phone system. C. Evidence was received from the Ministry of Justice that the safety considerations from the first floor mezzanine level complied with HMPPS standards. The witness indicated in the witness box that he had never seen the design of the railings at HMP Altcourse before and would be reviewing the first floor Mezzanine safety for this design of Prison. The Court seeks confirmation of this review covering both railings and netting as options. (The Court heard that netting would be problematic given the easy access both from above and below – leading to disruption for the prison). D. In this inquest the Home Office were given the status of interested persons from an early stage. The Court has been greatly assisted by counsel and instructing solicitors acting for the department along with two witnesses. It was evident and unhelpful that the Home Office did not have a senior manager present throughout the proceedings to assist the court on procedures, if only by way of liaison. The Inquest is not an immigration appeal tribunal and yet on evidence received it is more likely than not that Mr Netyks was exercising Treaty rights through employment and family life in North Wales. It appeared unfair that an incarcerated subject of the deportation process was required to provide evidence of the exercise of Treaty rights when the Home Office Caseworker could easily have made a check with the employer or HMRC for corroboration of his appeal against the stage one process. This is particularly concerning given English was a second language and all documentation was only provided in English. The facility to appear to speak and understand English is not the same as being able to comprehend the written word. This apparent unfairness could be addressed by the issue in B above, or by immigration officers explaining such documentation. E. On the sixth day of evidence, the Home Office disclosed partially redacted casework (CID) notes but only from 31st October 2017 to 5th November 2018. The entry on 5th November is of the greatest concern given the duty of candour and integrity expected from Government and its Civil servants. The Home Office was made an interested person to protect its rights but also to assist the court. The following entry needs investigation and an explanation as its effect is to manipulate statistics – it appears to be almost a denial of the facts… “Hi, Name: Michal Netyks DOB: 10 Aug 1982 Nationality: POL Gender: M System: CID Notes Created:05 Nov 2018Created by:M2CATOUnit:CCD Ops GeType:CASE Due to the sensitive nature of this case, senior management have taken the decision to make an exception with this case and delete the record indicating Mr Netyks was IS detained from 07.12.17. This is to prevent MI inadvertently recording this case as a death in immigration detention as Mr Netyks was still serving his custodial sentence at the time of his death. To ensure there are no gaps between the actual time of release from the HMP, current processes are in place to consider and serve detention paperwork in advance of the CRD and to then update the Restriction screen indicating the foreign national offender will be IS detained on the same date of CRD. These actions minimalises the risk of release without consideration. Monica Cato Data Analysis & Management Information Team (DAMIT) Criminal Casework Secretariat Tel: + Created:28 Aug 2018Created by:S11TAYLORUnit:Litig Ops Type:CASE Death in Custody case update: Inquest to be listed”