Brian Dalrymple

In the circumstances it is my statutory duty t0 report to you: (1) There is a lack of awareness amongst detention staff at Harmondsworth of: behaviours (and reported experiences) which may indicate the existence of mental health issues affecting particular detainees-particularly in relation to schizophrenia; and (i) the need to ensure that such potential indicators are brought to the attention of those responsible for the particular detainee's healthcare_ Despite the training which had been received by such staff prior to Mr Dalrymple's detention indicators of his mental ill-health were not recognised as such. Witness] identified events and circumstances from the point of Mr Dalryple's presentation at port and throughout his period of detention that he said "should have been picked up" and triggered a psychiatric assessment (for which there was an "overwhelming need") in Mr Dalrymple's case such concerns were not properly acknowledged at Harmondsworth_ The DCOs had not received sufficient training in the recognition of relevant indicators The evidence was that officers were and remain unclear whether particular behaviours, unusual in local society at large, should be regarded as significant amongst the population at Harmondsworth: It was clear from the evidence given by the Deputy Immigration Manager, and that of a clinical Contract Manager Interim Healthcare Manager that significant reliance Is placed on the detention officers to raise concerns over a detainee's mental heath.

(2) Relevant and significant observations recorded by detention centre staff and others are not actively brought to the attention of relevant healthcare staff: In the present case, custody officers' entries in wing history records were sufficient (alone or in combination) to alert a reader t0 the possibility of mental health issues affecting Mr Dalrymple whilst delained at Harmondsworth IRC; these indicators were missed: In the terms of Witness the overall picture of developing (relapsing) mental disorder was not available to any one set of people.

(3) Medical practitioners may be employed at Harmondsworth IRC without knowledge necessary t0 that role: The locum GP who gave evidence at the inquest was unaware of Delention Centre Rules 2001 or of the duties imposed on him by them-rule 35, for example: He was also unaware that healthcare staff had access t0 wing history documents.

(4) Routine medical visits to segregated detainees are inadequate properly to assess detainees' healthcare needs; The evidence was that each detainee would be asked through (he wicket medical problems?" and if the answer was negative,there would be nO further interaction- #Any witness described the practice as "not iit for purpose (5) The absence of a comprehensive and accessible (computerised) clinical record relating to each detainee at IRCs Harmondsworth and Colnbrook