If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume you’re happy to receive all cookies from the BMA website. Find out more about cookies
When you visit any web site, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalised web experience.
Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms.
You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.
These cookies are required
These cookies allow us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information we collect is anonymous unless you actively provide personal information to us.
If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.
These cookies allow a website to remember choices you make (such as your user name, language or the region you're in) and tailor the website to provide enhanced features and content for you.
For example, they can be used to remember certain log-in details, changes you've made to text size, font and other parts of pages that you can customise. They may also be used to provide services you've asked for such as watching a video or commenting on a blog. These cookies may be used to ensure that all our services and communications are relevant to you. The information these cookies collect cannot track your browsing activity on other websites.
Without these cookies, a website cannot remember choices you've previously made or personalise your browsing experience meaning you would have to reset these for every visit. In addition, some functionality may not be available if this category is switched off.
Our websites sometimes integrate with other companies’ sites. For example, we integrate with social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, to make it easier for you to share what you have read. These sites place their own cookies on your browser as a result of us including their icons and ‘like’ or ‘share’ buttons on our sites.
However, I am deeply concerned about his statements regarding the rule 35 process. Rule 35 has been developed by Parliament to help the Home Office comply with its own policy — that torture survivors and other vulnerable people should be released from detention in all but exceptional circumstances.
A rule 35 report is submitted by a doctor working in immigration-detention healthcare if they have a concern that the person may be a victim of torture.
Note the words ‘concern’ and ‘may’ — these are important as they set out the standard of proof required, which is very low, not as high as for the actual asylum claim itself and nothing like as high as the criminal standard of proof.
This important part of the rule 35 process recognises that clinical presentations of victims of torture and other abuses in detention may be variable, as a person may be too traumatised to describe everything in full or to disclose their worst experiences.
The rule 35 process is an acknowledgement also of the fact that torture claims are likely to be complex and it takes time to gather the evidence required, which is not possible in the detained setting.
I agree that the process is not functioning, and I am concerned at the report’s finding that doctors in immigration healthcare are overwhelmed: ‘… on-site teams were not sufficiently trained to complete them, that their reports were frequently questioned, and that the volume of such reports added to already high workloads’.
But I question whether the alternative proposal to take the examination out of the hands of the immigration removal centre doctors is really a better option.
If the reports are to be done only by more specialist-trained doctors and, as the BMA has called for, written guidelines modelled on the UN Istanbul Protocol, there are some critical risks and concerns attached.
The first of these is that bringing in a specialist rather than a generalist sends a signal that a higher standard of evidence is required before a torture survivor can be released from detention.
There have been long-running efforts by NGOs such as Freedom from Torture and Medical Justice to resist efforts by the Home Office to push the standard up towards an Istanbul Protocol-compliant process on the basis that this goes far beyond what rule 35 requires.
The second big concern is that if the Home Office case owners do not currently regard the opinion of the doctors they themselves employ as credible, and regularly override it, will they do the same for the proposed alternatives — ‘forensic medical examiners, university pathology doctors and specialist clinicians from NGOs’?
Also, while the Shaw report rightly highlights PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), other mental health problems are given much less prominence.
Not everyone who has been tortured has a diagnosable mental illness (Istanbul Protocol paragraph 236), or they may suffer from conditions other than PTSD, but their health problems may still be greatly exacerbated by the stress of detention.
The report’s recommendation on rule 35 risks making the process more complex when all that is required is for the Home Office to respond to the concerns highlighted by the doctors they already employ by releasing detainees where a concern is expressed and then allow time for specialist medical evidence to be provided for those cases that require it, as part of the substantive asylum decision-making process.
The immigration removal centre doctors have been offered some specialist training and a new template is proposed to guide them in how to complete a more detailed assessment in the rule 35 report.
But this does not address two underlying problems: first, the lack of accountability for a failure to implement their own policy and process that allows civil servants to discard the concerns of doctors and promotes an overall rise in the evidential threshold for torture. Second, the failure to risk assess for vulnerability adequately so that people do not end up in unnecessary and harmful detention in the first place.
Juliet Cohen is head of doctors at Freedom from Torture
Read Stephen Shaw's review
BMA story: Detention guidance not fit for purpose