Independent Monitoring Boards annual report

Gatwick IRC

Report year 2024 Published 4 Dec 2025 Type IRC, category IRC Responsible body Gatwick IRC 20 recommendations

The summary and positive findings below were written from the report by an AI model. The Board's own wording is in the report linked above.

Summary

Summary written by this site (AI-generated)
Gatwick IRC experienced a volatile year ending March 2024, marked by high levels of violence, self-harm, and one death in custody. The Board expresses significant concerns over inadequate safeguards for vulnerable detainees, long detention periods, and systemic failures in healthcare, particularly around Rules 34 and 35. Detainees also face issues with interpretation services, excessive handcuffing, and an inhumane regime with long lock-up times and increased segregation.

Positive findings

Summary written by this site (AI-generated)
The Board commends the care and solicitude shown by many staff, noting particularly good practice among officers on E wing, the welfare and religious affairs departments, and some residential officers. The shift to directly employed GPs has positively impacted healthcare delivery. Improvements in Home Office Detention Engagement Team (DET) presence and proactive case chasing are welcomed. Additionally, the positive impact of Skype facilities and plans for video call booths, along with the rollout of new smartphones, are seen as beneficial developments for detainees.

Recommendations

All 20 recommendations

Key concerns

All 33 key concerns

Recommendations 20 items · 1 repeated

Recommendations were extracted from the report by AI, and responses and their status from the ministerial response by AI. Each recommendation shows whether its wording has been checked against the report.

Recommendation 1

Response: Rejected

Addressee: Ministry of Justice · Topic: Regime · Repeated from a previous year

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Introduce a time limit for immigration detention (repeated from IMB annual reports since 2018).
Government response (as published)
There are currently no plans to introduce a time limit for immigration detention. A time limit on immigration detention would significantly impair our ability to remove those who have breached our immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. It is likely to encourage and reward abuse, allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate the removal process until the time limit is reached. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made simply to push a person over the time limit, regardless of the circumstances of their case. This would undermine our ability to maintain effective immigration control and potentially place the public at higher risk, in particular through the release of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) into the community. The Home Office will seek to minimise detention times to ensure the timely return of those who have failed their claims or for FNOs who are set to be deported. The law does not permit individuals to be detained indefinitely. Our policies make clear that for detention to be lawful, that detention should be reasonable and for a specific statutory purpose, such as for examination or removal.

Source text verified

Recommendation 2

Response: Partially accepted

Addressee: Home Office · Topic: Safety

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Review how key mechanisms intended to safeguard the detained men operate together to ensure that they provide effective outcomes: Detention Gatekeeper, healthcare arrival screening, Rule 34 assessments, Rule 35 processes, assessment, care and teamwork in detention plans (ACDT, used to monitor detained people who are considered at risk of self-harm), ACDT and vulnerable adult care plan (VACP) processes, and Adults at Risk policies and process.
Government response (as published)
It is accepted that improvements to certain mechanisms regarding safeguarding of those with vulnerabilities will be considered. The review into changes to both Detention Centre Rule 34 and 35, and the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy has now been completed and advice and recommendations have been provided to Ministers. The Home Office will then be able to commence the process of implementing any approved reforms, which will take between 6-9 months to implement. Progress on the training and quality of decisions is already underway. The role of the Detention Gatekeeper (DGK) is to consistently apply the Detention: General Instructions, and Adults at Risk (AaR) in immigration detention policy so that detention only takes place where there is a realistic prospect of return within a reasonable timescale: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adults-at-risk-in-immigration-detention Where vulnerabilities are identified, the presumption of liberty is strengthened for that individual, and the appropriateness of detention is balanced against any immigration control and public-protection considerations on a case-by-case basis. The Adults at Risk policy does not exempt vulnerable people from the possibility of detention, however vulnerable individuals will only be detained under immigration powers where those immigration control considerations or public-protection factors outweigh any risk factors in their case. In addition, mental vulnerability and immigration detention non-clinical guidance was published in July 2020 (reissued July 2023). This guidance looks to ensure that appropriate support is offered to: those who lack decision making capacity, those with disability arising from mental impairment and those who have a mental health condition; and that, for those with a disability, adjustments are made to support the individual whilst in immigration detention. All individuals have ready access to healthcare throughout their detention and can make an appointment with the healthcare team at any point - ensuring access to medical professionals and levels of primary care in line with that available in the community. There are also established procedures in place in every IRC to manage vulnerable individuals including those with mental health concerns, with formal risk assessments undertaken on initial detention and additional systems for raising concerns at any subsequent point At Gatwick Serco operate both Assessment Care in Detention and Teamwork, and Vulnerable Adult Care Plan processes across Gatwick to support those vulnerable residents within our care. Residents are supported by Multi-Disciplinary Team meetings and the information of who is on these documents is shared with stakeholders to ensure appropriate actions can be taken by all to ensure key mechanisms operate together.

Source text verified

Recommendation 3

Response: Rejected

Addressee: Home Office · Topic: Safety

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Operate with a presumption of release in cases of vulnerability, considering not just whether vulnerabilities can be accommodated in detention, but also at what cost to the detained man.
Government response (as published)
Detention plays a key role in maintaining effective immigration control and securing the UK’s borders, particularly in connection with the removal of people who have no right to remain in the UK but who refuse to leave voluntarily. There is an existing presumption in immigration policy that a person will not be detained. The Home Office recognises that some groups of people can be at particular risk of harm in immigration detention. This is the basis of the Adults at Risk in Immigration Detention policy. In accordance with the policy, individuals considered to be vulnerable, including those suffering from serious physical and mental health conditions, are detained only when the vulnerability considerations in their case are outweighed by the immigration considerations. The Home Office takes the welfare and safety of people in its care very seriously and we are committed to ensuring the proper protection and treatment of vulnerable people in detention. The Home Office is clear that decisions to detain, and subsequent decisions to maintain detention or release must be well-made, with systematic safeguards and support for the vulnerable and that Detention should be for the shortest period necessary.

Source text verified

Recommendation 4

Response: Partially accepted

Addressee: Home Office · Topic: Equality

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Ensure that suitable training and support is provided so that professional interpretation services are used effectively to ensure communication with detained men is clear and transparent. Ensure that a translation into their own language is provided alongside all documents.
Government response (as published)
It is accepted that suitable training and support be provided to those in detention. It is not accepted that all documents will be provided in a resident’s own language. Detention Services Order (DSO) 2/2022 Interpretation Services sets out the provisions, including interpretation services and translation devices, available for individuals held in immigration detention and the circumstances in which these should be used. The DSO explains that electronic translation devices should be viewed as an additional support tool and should not replace in-person or telephone interpretation services, which must continue to be used for all essential interactions where accuracy is of significant importance. This includes DET inductions, service of immigration paperwork and medical appointments. At Gatwick specifically, training has been provided to Serco operational staff on use of translation via “toolbox talks”. These provide guidance on when to use translation and the varying options available to improve communication with residents and provide appropriate information. Local documents, including house rules, have been translated into various languages and these are provided to residents upon their entry into Gatwick. In line with DSO 02/2022 Serco use translation tablets for some informal conversations. These can be used as a last resort if other services are unavailable and there are checks in place to ensure these tablets are compliant with the DSO. If a resident requires assistance with translation, officers will use Big Word or in specific circumstances ask for the assistance of an officer who can speaks the same language as the resident.

Source text verified

Recommendation 5

Response: Implemented

Addressee: Home Office · Topic: Staffing

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Reclassify welfare officer roles as ‘red roles’ to maintain staffing levels in this important function.
Government response (as published)
Several Welfare roles have been reclassified as “red roles”, supported by additional Welfare posts designated as “green roles”. Recruitment in Welfare has taken place during both 2024 and 2025 with the majority of the increased Welfare roles now filled. This means that it is now commonplace for all welfare roles on the daily detail to be filled, with cross deployment rarely required.

Source text verified

Recommendation 6

Response: Rejected

Addressee: Home Office · Topic: Regime

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Revise lock-in times to provide the detained men more association time.
Government response (as published)
The implementation of night state will be dependent on the physical layout of each centre. Published Home Office guidance, DSO 4/2018 Management and security of night state outlines the standards and general principles of how the night state should be operated across the estate to ensure a consistent approach is taken. Gatwick arrangements are in accordance with this DSO and have been agreed by the Home Office and assessed as balancing the need to maintain safety and security with the dignity and welfare of residents.

Source text verified

Recommendation 7

Response: In progress

Addressee: Home Office · Topic: Resettlement

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Eliminate unnecessary delays as far as possible in immigration case decision-making and travel booking and work with the Probation Service to improve timeliness in bail accommodation approval.
Government response (as published)
Case owners such as National Returns and Progression Command (NRPC) and Foreign National Offenders Removal Command (FNORC), conduct regular reviews to ensure that detention remains lawful, appropriate and proportionate. Case Progression Panels (CPP) with independent panel members provide additional assurance and challenge on the progress of cases of individuals in detention, reinforcing the consideration of removability, vulnerability and risk factors in decisions to maintain detention. Case decisions are taken as appropriate considering all factors available. A pilot is underway between the Home Office and Ministry of Justice with regards to accessing bail accommodation for those released on probation and is due to end in April 2026.

Source text verified

Recommendation 8

Response: Rejected

Addressee: Home Office · Topic: Complaints

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Conduct an audit to identify how it is possible that men deemed to lack legal capacity have been asked to sign immigration papers in detention and why men are not receiving their monthly report or not receiving it on time.
Government response (as published)
Although noted in this report it is not considered that at Gatwick residents were asked to sign immigration papers without the legal capacity to do so. This issue was raised in 2025 by the IMB National Chair but did not relate to Gatwick IRCs. The wider issues were addressed separately by the Home Office in response to the IMB National Chair explaining that revised caseworking processes are in place regarding those held in Secure Mental Facilities. Regarding monthly reviews these are completed (in line with the Detention General Instructions) and served to residents accordingly, with all residents seen every 28 days as a minimum.

Source text verified

Recommendation 9

Response: In progress

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Equality

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Ensure that professional interpretation is used during the reception process, to ensure that detained men fully understand what they are being told and are able to make properly informed commitments (such as the IT use policy).
Government response (as published)
As set out in DSO 06/2013 - Reception and induction guidance Serco must conduct a basic assessment of the individual’s proficiency in spoken English during the reception process. This assessment should take place through a short conversation with the individual, using “open” questions. Staff at Gatwick are fully aware of the processes surrounding the use of translation in the reception area (as explained at recommendation 4 above) and this is documented on local IT systems and is in accordance with DSO 2/2022 interpretation services and use of translation devices. Translation tablets are also used on occasion to ensure that information is provided appropriately to residents upon entry to Gatwick.

Source text verified

Recommendation 10

Response: In progress

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Safety

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Establish suitable mechanisms with relevant other parties to ensure that information regarding men's medical conditions/medication, vulnerabilities or security risks arrives with them or is shared in a timely way.
Government response (as published)
As noted earlier in the response to recommendation 2, proposals to change processes regarding Adults at Risk and DC Rule 35 are underway, with the IMB being provided the opportunity to comment on these as part of external engagement. Case owners receive notifications from Healthcare or Serco of any changes to an individual’s medical condition or mental wellbeing and have processes in place that address this. These processes include, where appropriate, links with the appropriate FNO RC Immigration Prison Team. The mechanism for healthcare to ensure available information regarding men's medical conditions/medication, vulnerabilities and security risks arrives with them is via the Person Escort Record (PER). Where additional information is required, healthcare will contact the sending establishment. In addition Multi-Disciplinary team (MDT) meetings are held with all relevant parties to ensure the appropriate actions are taken on individuals of particular concern. Should any change in circumstances be noted by the casework team that leads to a change in AaR level they will inform the IRC.

Source text verified

Recommendation 11

Response: Implemented

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Staffing

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Provide appropriate training and support to ensure effective use by officers of the Monitor, Challenge, Support documents/process.
Government response (as published)
The Monitor, Challenge, Support (MCS) process was started in June 2025. Residential managers have already received this training with “upskill” training provided to other staff when the scheme was introduced. MCS also forms part of the yearly staff refresher programme which every Detainee Custody Officer (DCO) undertakes.

Source text verified

Recommendation 12

Response: Rejected

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Safety

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Review (in conjunction with Practice Plus Group) the appropriateness of risk assessments undertaken before undertaking planned uses of force with kitted teams and establish protocols and guidance that adequately balance (physical and mental) risk to staff against (physical and mental) risk to the detained man.
Government response (as published)
In 2024 the use of personal protective equipment as part of a planned use of force was managed in line with the MOJ Use of Force Policy framework and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. In November 2025 a Use of Force for Adults in Detention DSO was published. This is national guidance that IRC staff including healthcare providers are expected to follow. In addition, PPG staff have their own training package to enable a good understanding of their role in this process. Serco also have a risk assessment process in place and briefing scripts are completed to ensure that all details of the planned removal are captured with healthcare in attendance. Mental and physical wellbeing are discussed during the briefings to staff carrying out the planned interventions.

Source text verified

Recommendation 13

Response: Partially accepted

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Resettlement

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Implement the provision of travel plans (in a suitable language and with suitable explanations) to men being released from Gatwick who will be travelling on their own by public transport.
Government response (as published)
Although travel plans are not required as per the DSO 01/2018 Release of Detainees efforts will be made especially with those residents with vulnerabilities as per Annex G on DSO 06/2013 Reception and induction checklist. The need for travel plans to be translated also does not form part of the DSO, however staff will engage with residents and ensure that they are aware of their destination and where they are going for onward travel, including via the use of public transport ( in which cases a travel pass will be provided and be explained to the resident.)

Source text verified

Recommendation 14

Response: Partially accepted

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Equality

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Ensure that suitable training and support is provided so that professional interpretation services are used effectively in communications with the detained men, particularly in sensitive contexts such as ACDT, VACP and Rule 40 reviews.
Government response (as published)
As noted in response to recommendations 4 and 9 above, DSO 02/2022 Interpretation Services is adhered to, to improve communication with residents and provide information whilst situated at Gatwick.

Source text verified

Recommendation 15

Response: Rejected

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Regime

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Consider adapting the appointments system in Welfare to allow men to access the service soon after they have been at a Home Office surgery meeting, if they wish to do this.
Government response (as published)
The Welfare office provides a drop-in service enabling a responsive approach to managing resident needs, including support post interaction with the Home Office as required.

Source text verified

Recommendation 16

Response: In progress

Addressee: Governor / Director · Topic: Education

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Create a set of educational and training opportunities that are more appealing to a wider cohort of men and are more effective as preparation for return or release.
Government response (as published)
Engagement with residents is ongoing as part of wing forums and resident consultative meetings which take place to gain the views of residents on all the services provided at the centre, including education and training. A review of the curriculum is offered by the teaching staff with individual learning plans created and utilised, especially with access to the new “iHasco” online courses that are now available to all residents. These include Microsoft Office, Health & Safety and Business/HR courses that can be continued and completed after a resident leaves the centre.

Source text verified

Recommendation 17

Response: In progress

Addressee: NHS / Healthcare Provider · Topic: Healthcare

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Review the mechanisms for informing and encouraging detained men to take up the offer of a Rule 34 appointment, as these are a vital safeguard, greatly increasing the likelihood of detection of vulnerabilities.
Government response (as published)
To improve take up of Rule 34 appointments, PPG are reviewing internal processes regarding encouraging residents to take up the offer/attend these appointments. As part of this Practice Plus Group (PPG) will regularly review attendance rates to evidence their compliance.

Source text verified

Recommendation 18

Response: In progress

Addressee: NHS / Healthcare Provider · Topic: Healthcare

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Provide suitable training and support to ensure that all healthcare staff, including General Practitioners, are clear about their obligations under Detention Centre Rule 35, and understand how these are to operate.
Government response (as published)
All PPG and sub-contracted staff working at Gatwick IRC receive a comprehensive induction package which includes information on their obligations under Detention Centre Rule 35. A training package has been developed by the Home Office Rule 35 Team and is being delivered to medical practitioners and other relevant healthcare staff, including those based in short-term holding facilities. The package focusses on the process for preparing and considering reports and aims to improve the reporting of vulnerabilities. All GPs contracted by PPG to carry out Rule 35 Assessments have received the appropriate Rule 35 assessment training.

Source text verified

Recommendation 19

Response: Rejected

Addressee: NHS / Healthcare Provider · Topic: Equality

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Ensure that suitable training and support is provided so that professional interpretation services are used effectively in communications with the detained men, particularly during critical safeguards such as initial screening, and Rule 34 and 35 appointments.
Government response (as published)
In addition to the responses provided at recommendations 4, 9 and 14 above referencing DSO 02/2022 Interpretation Services the PPG policy is clear about the use of interpretation services and staff are trained in its use. Use and offer of an interpreter is well documented and there is regular management oversight to ensure compliance by PPG staff.

Source text verified

Recommendation 20

Response: Rejected

Addressee: NHS / Healthcare Provider · Topic: Complaints

Recommendation (the Board's words)
Provide more transparency about healthcare complaints and shorter timeframes for response. Provide adequate information to allow the IMB to assess the nature of the complaints and the effectiveness and efficiency of this complaints process.
Government response (as published)
In accordance with paragraph 18 of the Detention Services Order (DSO) 03/2015 Handling complaints, complaints relating to healthcare are handled confidentially - due to “medical in confidence” issues - under separate local NHS complaints procedures and different timescales for investigation and response apply (from those relating to non-healthcare complaints). These procedures are designed to ensure that detained individuals can raise concerns about any aspect of NHS-commissioned healthcare services, including the conduct of healthcare staff, delays in treatment, or access to medication, in a manner that is both confidential and independent of the Home Office. Healthcare providers are required to make information about these procedures readily available to detained individuals, including through translated materials and support from interpreters where necessary. Detained individuals can submit complaints directly to the healthcare provider or through the Detention Services Complaints Team, who will ensure that the complaint is passed to the appropriate NHS body for investigation. IRC Compliance and DS Complaints Teams redirect healthcare complaints to the relevant on-site healthcare manager. Details about the complaint will not be retained and only summary details of the number of complaints will be retained. [in accordance with paragraph 22 of the DSO] As per PPG policy the response time for a formal complaint is now 30 days. This policy was changed in June 2024. Healthcare complaints processes, procedures and outcomes have been thoroughly examined by CQC & HMIP inspectorate and deemed to be effective. PPG regularly provide reports on complaints to NHSE Commissioning Teams and stakeholder partners in Local Delivery and Partnership Boards and are always open and transparent with IMB members investigating complaints. In accordance with GDPR legislation and data protection requirements, detailed personal or clinical information cannot be shared externally. The importance of ensuring that all detained individuals have access to an accessible clearly promoted, independent, and confidential system for raising concerns about healthcare is however noted.

Source text verified

Key concerns 33 items

Key concerns were extracted from the report text by an AI model.

Key concern 1

Safety · Repeated from a previous year

As in 2023, both Brook House and Tinsley House continue to feel volatile and less safe than in the preceding years. Examples include violent altercations and assaults on both detained men and on staff, and concerns reported by detained men about drugs, unpredictable behaviour and tensions between nationalities. Levels of violence, self-harm and suicidal ideation remain high at Brook House. Many staff conduct themselves with care and solicitude, but there remains a culture of disbelief and sometimes a lack of empathy.

Key concern 2

Safety · Repeated from a previous year

A detained man died at Brook House during the reporting year. This is the second death in two years. While legal and procedural issues were adequately managed, communication with and support for detained men was clumsy and insufficient.

Key concern 3

Safety

The Detention Gatekeeper has not been robust enough in its purpose of preventing vulnerable people from being detained and safeguards in the centre have been insufficiently effective in detecting these vulnerabilities. Among other evidence of the unacceptably high levels of vulnerability at Brook House in 2024 is the fact that five men were sufficiently unwell that they were sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

Key concern 4

Healthcare

Vulnerabilities are not being identified early enough, either through healthcare screening on arrival or Rule 34 reviews. These reviews are poorly attended. Healthcare has not done enough to improve uptake in 2024.

Key concern 5

Healthcare

Wait times for Rule 35 appointments in both Brook House and Tinsley House are unacceptably long. There are still insufficient numbers of men being assessed for deterioration in detention and suicidality under Rules 35(1) and 35(2). In most cases a Rule 35 report does not lead to a man's release.

Key concern 6

Safety

There is a tendency to presume that if a risk related to a man's vulnerability can be managed in detention, then it should be, which the Board feels exacerbates the risk of both short- and long-term harm to detained men.

Key concern 7

Safety

Safeguarding governance, such as the Safer Community meeting, is adequate in that it meets minimum requirements, but meetings can often be perfunctory, poorly attended, and the voice of the detained man is absent.

Key concern 8

Safety

Safeguards that should be used in combination to provide a reliable safety net are not adequately aligned.

Key concern 9

Resettlement/Release

Lack of case progression is an important contributor to tension and feelings of insecurity and has led to an unprecedented 28 serious incidents in 2024, including large-scale protests and men climbing onto the anti-suicide netting.

Key concern 10

Regime/Time Out of Cell

There is insufficient consideration of how distressing and confusing arrival can be, particularly for men with no prior history of detention. Reception areas can be noisy, chaotic and lack confidentiality and the process can take too long, with men sometimes waiting for long periods of time in coaches or minibuses.

Key concern 11

Complaints/Property

While Home Office engagement with detained men has improved in the centres, there are concerning examples of detained men being dealt with in ways that are, at a minimum, legally and ethically questionable. This includes presenting papers to be signed by men who have been deemed to lack legal capacity and failure to provide men with their IS.151F monthly progress report.

Key concern 12

Regime/Time Out of Cell · Repeated from a previous year

The Board repeats its view that detention without a time limit is unfair and inhumane.

Key concern 13

Equality/Diversity

Interpretation has been a serious problem in every area of centre operations, with poor practice including not providing interpretation based on the presumption that men can understand ‘well enough’; poor use of interpreters; and use of staff members or other detained men to interpret, with an impact on impartiality and confidentiality. This is unfair, putting men at a disadvantage and heightening the risk that vulnerabilities are not detected or that the men are unable to represent themselves or understand their entitlements, including to legal and healthcare services.

Key concern 14

Safety · Repeated from a previous year

Virtually every man attending a hospital visit in 2024 did so in handcuffs. Out of a total of 380 escorts to hospital, only 9 (2.4%) were not handcuffed. The Board considers this inhumane and unfair. While the Board understands that the use of handcuffs is determined by a risk assessment, it is unreasonable to believe that nearly 100% of men would be assessed as high risk. The Board feels that this assessment is inequitable and demonstrates a presumption toward handcuffing.

Key concern 15

Estate/Conditions

Both Brook House and Tinsley House are run down and grimy, despite regular cleaning. Ventilation in both centres is problematic, with poor temperature control, and Tinsley House often smells of damp and mildew.

Key concern 16

Segregation

There has been a substantial increase in the use of separation and segregation under Detention Centre Rules 40 and 42 in 2024. This is largely attributable to the ‘positioning’ of men in advance of removal. The Board considers this has happened in 2024 too often and sometimes too early, unnecessarily restricting access to legal and social support, as well as exercise and activities.

Key concern 17

Segregation · Repeated from a previous year

The Board reiterates the concern it raised last year about the use of separation when a man refuses to share a room which, in many cases, we consider unjustified. Separation has been used too often to respond to behaviour resulting from mental health difficulties or distress, including self-harm.

Key concern 18

Staffing

There remain, however, some instances of intimidating, callous or disrespectful behaviour both to and about detained men across all organisations at Gatwick. This is especially concerning from those with particular care and safeguarding responsibilities such as healthcare. Too often, public use of callous and dehumanising language about detained men goes unchallenged.

Key concern 19

Complaints/Property

The proportion of complaints across Gatwick about centre operations or staff behaviour that are upheld has decreased again this year and seems unreasonably low. About 30% of complaints relate in some way to staff conduct or behaviour.

Key concern 20

Staffing

Unfilled permanent staffing positions and prolonged recruiting times have had a negative impact on healthcare.

Key concern 21

Healthcare

A concerning staff culture of callous and unempathetic treatment by healthcare staff has been reported by men and observed by Board members.

Key concern 22

Healthcare

PPG's delivery on Detention Centre Rules 34 and 35 is insufficient to ensure that their role as key safeguards is being fulfilled.

Key concern 23

Healthcare

The Board remains concerned by the policy of not attending first response calls, as it is a time when detained people are both vulnerable and a situation where there is a risk of harm.

Key concern 24

Healthcare

Communication between healthcare and detained men appears weak, resulting in missed appointments, frustration for men and, anecdotally, cases of self-harm.

Key concern 25

Complaints/Property

The number of formal complaints about healthcare seems disproportionately low, for example relative to the number of Applications raised with the Board, and thus potentially unrepresentative of men's satisfaction with the service. The complaints system is opaque to the men, who have little trust in it, and to the Board, which has no data about how many are upheld. The Board considers a turn-around time of 60 days, or even 30 days, for a response to a complaint to be too long and unfair to the men.

Key concern 26

Mental Health

Weak provision of mental health support is a major concern, particularly given the high number of individuals with diagnosed and undiagnosed mental health disorders.

Key concern 27

Staffing

Welfare provides a vital role in the centre and is highly valued by the men. It is too often understaffed when officers are moved to cover gaps elsewhere in the centre. Changes made in the way Welfare is organised have improved confidentiality and privacy for men accessing the services but may not provide sufficient space for urgent issues to be addressed.

Key concern 28

Regime/Time Out of Cell

Lock-up times are too long. Men are locked in their rooms for 12 hours out of every 24. The Board considers this inhumane.

Key concern 29

Education/Purposeful Activity

Only a small proportion of the detained men take part in face-to-face or online educational courses, which can be haphazard and elementary.

Key concern 30

Resettlement/Release

Men spend too long in detention. The average stay is just over 30 days; but 20% to 25% of men stay longer than 70 days, with an average stay for these men of 160 days. One man had had been in detention for 708 days.

Key concern 31

Resettlement/Release

Slow case progression has a major effect on the detained men, leading in some cases to deep distress, mental illness and self-harm. Protests about slow case progression were a significant factor in increased disruption and serious incidents during 2024.

Key concern 32

Resettlement/Release

The majority of men continue to be released (60%) rather than removed (40%). This is concerning given the known negative impact of detention.

Key concern 33

Resettlement/Release

There continue to be considerable difficulties and delays in men finding bail accommodation and the 'probation pilot' has had no discernible effect on this.

Safety statistics

Incidents during the reporting year.

IndicatorThis yearPrevious
Deaths in custody11
Prisoner assaults8682
Assaults on staff180not recorded
Use of force785599

Population

Operational capacity588
Time out of cell12.0h/day

Applications to the IMB

CategoryCurrentPrevious
Accommodation (including transfers) 54 41
Bail (including legal and advice) 124 103
Complaints Process 9 7
Detention Conditions (including food) 103 89
Healthcare 148 112
Immigration Case Work 201 190
Interpretation and Communication 16 11
Other 18 15
Property and Money 26 18
Staff Behaviour 44 32
TOTAL 743 618

Report details

Establishment
Gatwick IRC
Type
IRC, category IRC
Report year
2024
Published
4 December 2025
Responsible body
Gatwick IRC
Recommendations
20

Service providers

ServiceProvider
Centre ManagementSerco
HealthcarePractice Plus Group
Welfare SupportSamaritans

Other reports for Gatwick IRC

2025

Published 2 Sep 2026 · Population 406 · Key concerns recorded

2023

Published 29 Aug 2024 · Key concerns recorded

2021

Published 23 Jun 2022 · Population 107 · Key concerns recorded