Updates, commentary, training and advice on immigration and asylum law

Deaths in detention, Home Office legal duties and Rule 35


Older content is locked

A great deal of time and effort goes into producing the information on Free Movement, become a member of Free Movement to get unlimited access to all articles, and much, much more


By becoming a member of Free Movement, you not only support the hard-work that goes into maintaining the website, but get access to premium features;

  • Single login for personal use
  • FREE downloads of Free Movement ebooks
  • Access to all Free Movement blog content
  • Access to all our online training materials
  • Access to our busy forums
  • Downloadable CPD certificates

Alois Dvorzac died in handcuffs in immigration detention in 2013. He was 84 years old, suffered from Alzheimers and he had been handcuffed for five hours by the time he died. It was a miserable, ignominious end to what Channel 4 has shown us was a rich and varied life. Yesterday tragic news emerged of another death in detention, this time at Yarl’s Wood. Nothing is yet known other than the deceased was a 40 year old woman and thought to be from Jamaica.

The Dvorzac incident shocked and horrified. The fact that he was white and of European origin added additional shock value for some: if these Home Office officials and security contractors are so out of control that they do this to him, what might they do to ‘us’ or our own elderly relatives? The case highlights the terrifying powers awarded to itself by the State. It shows also that the State cannot be trusted with those powers.

The reaction reminds me, though, of the apparently controversial Amnesty International campaign from last year, When You Don’t Exist:

Rule 35

One thing in particular jumped out at me from the Channel 4 report and it has been praying on my mind ever since: the way in which the Rule 35 report was ignored by the Home Office officials responsible for Mr Dvorzac’s detention. We know that it was received and that officials did nothing.

Rule 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001 requires that the doctor at the immigration detention centre “shall report to the manager on the case of any detained person whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued detention or any conditions of detention.” In this case a doctor did apparently write a Rule 35 report and it stated:

Frail, 84 yrs old, has Alzheimer’s disease … demented. UNFIT for detention or deportation. Requires social care.

Rule 35 also requires that “the detained person shall be placed under special observation for so long as those suspicions remain, and a record of his treatment and condition shall be kept throughout that time in a manner to be determined by the Secretary of State” and that a copy of the Rule 35 be sent to the Secretary of State “without delay”.

There is also an accompanying policy document to elaborate on the treatment of Rule 35 reports. This is Detention Services Order DSO 17/2012. Paragraph 34 states that the Home Office case owner has two working days to respond to a Rule 35 report and must engage with the concerns raised and give reason for maintaining detention or ordering release. The case owner’s name and team must be clearly identified. The medical practitioner should be sent a copy of the Home Office response (para 26) and if the Rule 35 report is considered deficient in some way, clarification must be sought from the medical practitioner (para 32).

There is a very clear process in place for ensuring that Rule 35 reports are rapidly considered. Usually this will be by the allocated case owner at the Home Office but paragraph 29 of DSO 17/2012 has a clear process even where there is no case owner.

Failing safeguards

The original HM Chief Inspector of Prisons report that first revealed the tragedy stated that the caseworker responsible at the Home Office “failed to respond to the Rule 35 report on time and had had to be chased twice before he had replied”, then attempted to have Mr Dvorzac forcibly removed before he was declared unfit to fly. The Rule 35 report was submitted on 30 January 2013, the response was issued on 5 February and Mr Dvorzac died on 10 February. He had already been taken to hospital in handcuffs once on 8 February and had been handcuffed for five hours by the time he died.

Lawyers often find that in practice these supposed safeguards are ignored or manipulated in order to maintain detention. Officials seem to want people to be deprived of their liberty, as if they enjoy the exercise of power over others.

I am currently dealing with a case where a Rule 35 report was submitted to the Home Office by a doctor with a body map showing very extensive scarring to the detainee’s legs. This was not sent to the lawyers or the judge, and the judge rejected the detainee’s claim to have injuries to his legs. When the Home Office file was finally disclosed, we found that the case owner’s response to the Rule 35 report had simply been that the Rule 35 report was not ‘independent evidence’ of torture and detention would therefore be maintained.


In the case of Alois Dvorzac, Ministers have blamed the security contractors for the handcuffing. The handcuffs probably didn’t kill Mr Dvorzac, though, it was his detention that did that. No-one has yet publicly confronted why Mr Dvorzac was detained for two weeks. Who was the case owner? What action if any is taken against them for failure to follow the correct procedures? If the correct procedure was followed, what changes are needed to avoid a repeat incident? Or might the tragic news from yesterday show it is too late already?

The mechanisms for protecting highly vulnerable individuals are failing. Miserable, lonely and sometimes unnecessary deaths are the direct consequence. Will anyone be held to account?

Relevant articles chosen for you
Picture of Colin Yeo

Colin Yeo

Immigration and asylum barrister, blogger, writer and consultant at Garden Court Chambers in London and founder of the Free Movement immigration law website.


5 Responses

  1. Colin, I will try my best not to be the first one to post a comment next blog. Patience not a trait I have in any abundance though.

    Where was an 84 year old man going to run to? Why was he in a detention centre at all, let alone for so long? If this was your grandfather, I hope you would ensure there would be hell to pay. So lets not all sit idle and wait for that day…let’s work to prevent a repeat of this and hold the government and security officers, the firm that provides the training, accountable. The entire system appears to be reminiscent of Das Experiment. Little people with more power than they can handle.

  2. I have come across instances in which a medical examination has been carried out on a person claiming to have been tortured and the doctor has carried out a extremely cursory examination and concluded that there was no evidence of torture and declared the person fit for detention. Subsequent investigation has revealed considerable evidence of torture. In one case a doctor overlooked 35 separate scars which were later deemed typical of the torture claimed to have been inflicted.

    There is enormous pressure on the doctors not to rock the boat. Those that do often have their professional integrity questioned. Some have even had their contracts terminated. When a doctor declares someone unfit, the caseworker frequently ignores their professional judgment.

    The new National Removals Command structure is designed to prevent representatives speaking to a caseworker or a senior manager. Instead representatives have to deal with ‘gatekeepers’ from Capita. This isolation from the detainee and the representatives means that the caseworker is so far removed from the case that they can maintain detention even in the face of considerable evidence that continued detention not only breaches Home Office policies, but places the detainee at serious risk.

    Detention appears to be an end of itself with NRC, even when there is no immediate prospect of removal.

    So long as this continues we will see more deaths in detention centers and more abuses of Human Rights.

    1. Regretably it will continue until the people ultimately responsible are publicly brought to answer for this situation. They are of course Cameron and May – with their right wing Tory nasty party henchmen.
      Bring then publicly to account in front of the people of the UK and let them explain why this is happening.

  3. Where was Ms May today at 3.30pm when she should have been in the Commons answering questions about deaths in her detention centre Yarls Wood. Ms May was conspicuous by her absence!
    She had her Immigration Minister James Brokenshire answer the questions Yvette Cooper, and other MPs put to the Home Secretary / Govt on this serious matter.
    May ducked out of her responsibility – again – showing her lack of responsibility and willingness to handle the situation when a serious situation like this arises!