Detention Centres in UK Law

I agree with these observations, but I would prefer to apply them to the system of review that is set out in the policy rather than to the system required by rule 9(1). This is because it seems to me that the 2001 Rules are concerned with the regulation and management of detention centres, not with the way the discretion to detain is exercised.

In my opinion, there is nothing in the Prison Act 1952 that confers power to make regulations which would deny, or interfere with, the right of the respondent, as a prisoner, to have unimpeded access to a court. Section 47, which has already been quoted, is a section concerned with the regulation and management of prisons and, in my opinion, is quite insufficient to authorise hindrance or interference with so basic a right.

However, there may be cases in which information available to the decision maker leads him to the firm conclusion that the torture claim is untrue, that is to say incredible or very unlikely to be true. It would be a perverse application of the policy to require the Secretary of State to release from custody someone in respect of whom there exists independent evidence of torture but also where it is clear that the claim is untrue.

Section 47 of the Prison Act, 1952 , deals with what the rubric describes as "rules for the management of prisons and other institutions". Sub-section (l) reads: "The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of prisons, remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions respectively, and for the classification, treatment, employment, discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein".

Mr Buckley conceded that the appellant was reasonably likely to be arrested on arrival and would be subjected to interrogation. However he argued that any investigation would reveal nothing of interest to the authorities and he would therefore be safe. We are sure that the appellant will be interrogated on arrival and he is most likely to be detained pending investigation. While in detention he will be held either in one of the Detention Centres or the Prisons.

The effect of mental illness on an individual does not follow as a necessary consequence of a particular diagnosis. It can vary according to its particular features, the particular characteristics and circumstances of the individual, and the treatment provided. The Royal College of Psychiatrists' position statement states (p 6) that whether mental illness is serious is a fact-sensitive question.

On arrival at each of these three detention centres the Claimant was seen by a staff nurse but not by a doctor though he did later see a doctor at his own request on 11 February at Harmondsworth. His full asylum interview had been initially fixed for 16 February but it was deferred at his own request to 24 February. On 22 February the Claimant's current solicitors Duncan Lewis wrote to the Defendant and, among other things, requested a further postponement of the full asylum interview.